Tag Archives: homoeopathy

The long night of darkness.


As a homoeopath, be you a medically qualified professional or not, Coronavirus is at present out of your hands. The allopathic grip on the situation is what it is, and if a person is taken to hospital with the flu, then treatment will be as mandated by the prevailing thoughts at the time. There will be no allowance for any other treatment.

There is a scramble for finding a prophylactic remedy to prevent the virus from taking hold, yet the symptoms of the virus appear to vary from country to country… and the criteria for sx assessment vary from homoeopath to homoeopath… and some are very suspect indeed. Worse than that, there is a scarcity of symptoms that a homoeopath needs for differentiation between remedies.

Recently I have treated about 21 cases of influenza, and  2 cases of pneumonia, both in my locale and in America, and based on the sx of the affected persons, I gave Phos to members of the families, and no one else contracted the flu. (All the patients recovered swiftly) In examining the coronavirus, (for my locale) I see that Phos might be suitable for use as a prophylactic, however, that is only based on what SX I can find from my colleagues in hospitals and the internet.

So my advice is to just keep watching and reading and listening for ‘real’ Sx and not broad generic ones, and then at that point we can help protect our patients.

Facts: 80% of people contracting the virus have it mild. As with any other virus, death occurs in individuals having serious pre-existing disorders, like cancer, diabetes, respiratory problems, heart issues etc. Even in the 20% that have it bad, less than 2% succumb.

The principles of homoeopathy part 4. (final 4/4)

This is the last post in this short series.


“a basic truth that explains or controls how something happens or works”

“a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning.”

We have principles in homoeopathy. Medical principles that should guide us through all aspects of treatment and patient management. We have example after example with thousands of cases that show success in the face of mainstream and herbal medicine failure.

One principle that homoeopaths seem to neglect continuously, is acceptance of the law and principle of similars, this being the bedrock of the therapy of homoeopathy.

Too often I read homoeopaths suggesting or recommending other therapies like naturopathy, vitamins, acupuncture, TCM, reflexology etc as ‘helpful’ in the current coronavirus spread.

I’m disappointed. It would appear that people claiming to be homoeopaths are not prepared to lean on the principles of homoeopathy and pursue them vigorously to cure patients utilising the law of similars. Why is this? Do they think that other therapies are stronger than the law of similars? Did they forget that Hahnemann showed how naturopathy did not and could not work in the curative principle when he translated Cullens work?

For those wanting a prophylactic for the disease in their area, they need to STOP looking outside of the law of similars and find the similar as per the law. It is ridiculous to leave medical principles behind and look for combination remedies, or herbal solutions as the answer. Do not take any suggestions from naturopathy or Thai traditional or TCM or acupuncture as these do not conform to the law of similars. If a person claiming to be a homoeopath keeps pushing ‘solutions’ outside of the therapy, Let me remind them that they have committed to the principle of similars, and if they do not hold to it, my strong suggestion is that they should re-educate themselves or cease being known as a practitioner of Hahnemann’s therapy. They will do more damage than good.

Given that the majority of members of our profession subscribe to a false practice, it is essential that those wanting to be known as effectual practitioners, know what they are doing conforms to the directives as set by Hahnemann.

Don’t let an emergency cloud your training or judgement. Homoeopathy never fails, just the practitioner.

Homoeopathy faces enough criticism for the practice. Let us not add to it by encompassing other ineffective therapies that contradict the principles into it.



The Homoeopath (Thoughts from the desk)

First, there are many cases of patient suffering, in which, despite investigations of all kinds, a clear diagnosis can not be established, although patients have symptoms and signs. These symptoms are sometimes categorized as psychosomatic, or as nonspecific disorders (eg diarrhoea before any examination, or any major event) and may be the cause of a decrease in quality of life. These can become homoeopathic cases, precisely because there is no disease diagnosis.

Secondly, a patient may experience recurrences, repeat disturbances of either viral (e.g., the common cold) or reaction-type (diarrhoea and bloating at certain foods: milk, fruit, meat, etc.) .). These recurrences may be due to immune deficiencies or are simply peculiarities of the patient’s physiology. Although they can be treated allopathically, they are homoeopathic cases when it comes to treating predispositions or preventing these conditions.

Thirdly, during ill-defined diseases as a diagnosis, patients exhibit different symptoms  (against defined disease standards), particular, even strange, difficult to explain and difficult to fit in the “typical” picture of the disease. These symptoms are generally considered peripheral and are ignored during allopathic treatment. Sometimes the remission of the diagnosed disease, these symptoms disappear, but sometimes not. Although allopathy considers the disease healed, the patient still suffers from the same problems or always faces the same symptomatic configuration. Is he healed?

The answer in allopathy is an approximate but not as consistent with what the patient feels. He suffers – contiguous or recurrent – but is considered “healed” though he is still not well, he feels ill. In children especially, this situation is very common. The child is “cured” by tonsillitis, bronchitis, etc., but continues to be sensitive, always becoming ill.

To cure, usage of multiple antibiotics, other medicines, but nobody takes into account that the baby, for example, is sensitive to wet weather, fog, rain.

A careful general practitioner will notice this particular sensitivity, but it does not have the conceptual framework to value it, or, in other words, it can not treat it. The allergist will shrug (moisture is not an allergen), the pneumologist, the ENT will treat tonsillitis, but the sensitivity to moisture. As the patient continues to “heal”, but not to be cured and again and again to produce the same tonsillitis (bronchitis, asthma, etc.) until the tonsils are extirpated or to have a suppressive cortisone treatment, often useless and immunodepressed.

The only person who can take this particular sensitivity into account, as well as other sensitivities and peculiarities, physical, mental or reactive, and for which it has a significance is the Homeopath. He (she) is the only one who can value such apparently peripheral disease symptoms that do not relate to the proper diagnosis but to the individual interpretation of suffering. There are particular, strange, uncompromising symptoms in the diagnosis of illness, which relate to the individuality of the patient, but which directly affects him, having a safe recurrence under the same conditions.

The keywords to characterize a homoeopathic case is the individualization of suffering . If we were to describe the characteristics of “homoeopathic cases” these would be:

–         Very individualized, particular symptoms, strange in association or not with certain diseases. Localizations, modalities, sensations and unusual symptoms of some symptoms.

–         Unusual association of illnesses and symptoms, interesting and unexpected configurations of symptoms, signs, illnesses.

–         Recurrence of disorders , whether or not related to certain events or conditions, whether external (eg climatic or food) or in-house (emotions, fears, anxieties, etc.).

–         Changes in the immune system either in excess (allergies, autoimmune diseases) or in deficiency (recurrence, sensitivity).

–         Resistance to allopathic treatment, even better as indicated in the diagnosis

–         residual symptoms after treatment allopathic

– Diseases or symptoms after emotional trauma, professional stress or any other kind. These are afflictions with a strong causality, after which the patient did not feel well (“never well since …”)

A thought for our colleagues in Hong Kong



From your friends and colleagues here in Europe and Thailand and the USA, we send our wishes and hopes for your safety and a good settlement of the current problems that beset you.

For Arden and Manisha who have worked so hard in the last few years to lay the foundation and potential for homoeopathy in Hong Kong, we send special affection for your dedication. For the students who wanted to do so much for the people of Hong Kong, and are suddenly in this political mess, we send hugs and well wishes.

For those, we love through personal knowledge, for those that rejected us, and for those that are suffering for all sorts of reasons right now… we remember you in our prayers daily.

It is a salutatory lesson that if a country will quash its own people, then internationally the world needs to be aware that they will indeed be ruthless with their dealings with Europe and the USA.

We are all on notice.



The Institute for Homoeopathic Medicine.

In 1810, Hahnemann presented his groundbreaking new medicine and therapy via the book the Organon of the Medical Art. He presented his method in carefully structured detail. He compiled a database of medical substance proving’s which were listed in the Fragmenta, the Materia Medica Pura and Chronic Diseases. Hahnemann taught his methods to many students and colleagues, but only put his trust in a small number of practitioners, of whom Clemens Maria Franz (Friedrich) Freiherr (Baron) von Bönninghausen was perhaps the most prominent.

Bönninghausen’s projects of reportorial works culminating in the Therapeutic Pocket Book, was approved by Hahnemann as being an accurate representation of the proving’s database and clinical experience. (The T.P.B. actually is an amazing synthetic approach of how Hahnemann’s mind worked in case analysis.)

Although Hahnemann revised the Organon six times before his death and constantly examined possible changes to the methodology, he never made changes to the central prescribing principle of like cures like, without which homoeopathy (the therapy) cannot exist as a separate modality. If the principle of “like cures like”, with its required database of provings, is abandoned, as has been the case with modern approaches and methods, the certainty offered by prescribing to principle is lost, the path obliterated.

At the IHM we look no further than Hahnemann’s circle of trust. We work with Hahnemann’s structure of method and database, Organon and proving’s. We explore the writings of those whom Hahnemann commended, and study and apply the work of Boenninghausen in great depth.

We do not do this slavishly. In order to validate the method, the works and writings of others claiming to be homoeopaths are examined for similarities and differences in approach to the therapy. Sadly, the decline in homoeopathic integrity began with one of its most able practitioners who was politically naïve.

On the political level, Carroll Dunham was a peacemaker. It was said of him that he had no enemies. His liberal and generous mind made it easier for him to accept compromise. Unfortunately, compromise on the search for the truth leads to error. In 1870 he made a notable presentation before the American Institute of Homœopathy (AIH) called ‘Freedom of Medical Opinion and Action: a Vital Necessity and a Great Responsibility’. He believed, contrary to his predecessors, that liberty of opinion and practice should prevail within the AIH. He said that he was sure that “perfect liberty will sooner bring knowledge of the truth and that purity of practice which we all desire.” His speech provided license to the pseudo-homoeopaths to practice as they wanted and be still identified as homoeopaths. Subsequent to his address knowledge of homoeopathy was removed in 1874 as a requirement for membership in the AIH. Dunham died in 1877 and did not witness the disastrous effect his noble but naïve vision eventually had on the course of homoeopathy in the U.S.A. as most of our institutions disappeared after its members had adopted practices at variance with the teachings of Hahnemann.

(Our Noble and Beloved Carroll Dunham by Dr André Saine, D.C., N.D., F.C.A.H.)

We work with great care and certainty because we value our integrity as homoeopathic practitioners, and we owe it to our patients to treat based on a tried and true principle, to avoid speculation, theorizing, and invented systems whether based on sensation, the periodic table, kabala, shamanism, kingdoms, families and the like.

Hahnemann’s homoeopathy is the modality which achieved tremendous successes in the cholera epidemic of the early 1830s, leading to its acceptance in medical faculties in Europe at the time as a discipline for study. The original works are filled with discussions and cases demonstrating the efficiency of the method across the spectrum of diseases afflicting mankind.

Today homoeopathy is either being outlawed or relegated to treatment of the most minor problems. Its vast ability as a medical modality is being lost. Poor training, poor understanding of the medical science behind its development and a search for novelty in case analysis all have contributed to its demise as a valid therapy and is thought of as an intuitive healing method rather than the effective treatment it really is.

The IHM puts all its efforts into teaching from original materials, working with practitioners to achieve greater certainty and effectiveness in prescribing through a full understanding of the central principle of homoeopathy and the best ways to apply it in homoeopathic practice.

We do not wish to add more novel ideas to the world of homoeopathy. We do see it as part of our professional duty, to keep the standards high and teach the real methodology to all who desire to practice proper medicine in the prescribed manner. We lay no claim to being ‘better’ prescribers. We do however concede that our results based on the instructions of Hahnemann give better resolution to medical problems than other interpretive methods of prescribing. There is great latitude in applying the therapy, however, deviating from its central core or adding a false overlay of psychological analysis and emphasizing or interpreting physical symptoms as delusional states are not the answer.

International and Organized Skeptic Movement Against Homeopathy

International and Organized Skeptic Movement Against Homeopathy

By the ANH Communication Working Group.


No one will be surprised at this point the certainty that there is an international crusade against homeopathy . Spontaneous? No, obviously not. It is not possible for the same modus operandi, the same media and institutional communication actions, as well as the same messages to be repeated over and over again and repeated in different parts of the globe for infused science.

No. Obviously it is no accident. The pseudo-skeptical movement, which embraces scientism as a new orthodox religion where everything that does not sound like a protocolized drug is considered blasphemy, has expanded as surprisingly as unnaturally.

The skeptical (or pseudo-skeptical) movement is an international, consolidated and well-financed network present in 54 countries worldwide. Its strong point is the English-speaking countries but they have found in Spain their own laboratory to try again and again different ways to approach, discredit and end complementary and / or unconventional therapies, especially with homeopathy. Until they have found the password and exported it.

But why homeopathy? Why invest so many resources, effort and money to end a therapy that does not reach 0.7% of the worldwide expenditure of OTC medicines and that is the equivalent to the pharmaceutical industry what Linux to operating systems?

Well for that. Because it is Linux and because pharmacoepidemiological studies such as EPI3, in France, conclude that patients treated by homeopathic doctors take 71% less psychotropic drugs, 46% less anti-inflammatory drugs and 57% less antibiotics, than those who only resort to conventional medicine . And all this with similar clinical results and without greater risk of complications (without loss of opportunity for the patient). Yes, they will tell us that precisely France is not a good example because the HAS has just concluded that homeopathy has not proved effective enough to justify its reimbursementbut we bring it here just because of that, because to obviate such clear and forceful results as these are proof not only of the bias of the evaluation but of the effect of the media controversy, in the words of France’s own minister of health , more typical of ‘ The Great Carnival ‘by Billy Wilder de Larra.


Spain may be where the pseudo-skeptical movement has had the most activity, not only because of the variety of actions they have carried out but also because of the time they have invested.

In Spain, the reference group for the skeptical (pseudo) movement was created in the late 80s (1986) as a cultural and scientific association, whose headquarters are located in the Pamplona Planetarium. What began as a movement that sought to dismantle the UFO phenomenon, has evolved into a pressure group, with members as illustrious as the Spanish Minister of Science himself, Pedro Duque, who defend transgenics – where Monsanto , from Bayer, is king – while attacking homeopathy … paradoxical? We leave it to your assessment.

According to their statutes, their financial resources come from: membership fees, results of their activities, private donations (both private and institutional) and also accept public subsidies.

This movement logically has its spokespersons that share the functions among different associations: the Society for the Advancement of Critical Thinking (ARP), the RedUne Association (Network for Sectarian Prevention and Weakness Abuse) and APETP. Among the four associations (including Skeptics), the media and institutional cake is distributed.

As revealed by the digital platform BlastingNews in the news “ The success of the antihomeopathy movement that leads Spain ”, this organized movement has a busy media and institutional agenda that has allowed them, among other things, to influence public opinion as well as important organizations like the WTO and the Government of Pedro Sánchez itself. In this sense, in 2017, the WTO created the Observatory against Pseudoscience, having among its drivers, according to the document published by the WTO, the APETP, the ARP-SAPC and the Skeptic Circle. Just the same associations that appear as institutions that have advised the government in the Plan presented by the Ministries of Science and Health, in November 2018. Chance? No, causality.

However, the “guerrilla plan” and methodology of the pseudo-skeptical movement to corner homeopathy begins in academia . In Spain, for example, in five years, this movement has achieved that no public or private university offers training courses in this therapy. The procedure they have followed is simple:

STEP 1 . Make public and institutional pressure (something similar tried in France with the University of Lille, which suspended a training course in homeopathy but without success , since the Conference of Deans of the Faculties of Medicine and the Conference of Deans of Pharmacy wrote a statement joint in favor of training in homeopathy with an “objective approach” ).

STEP 2. Take the next leap, to professional institutions and societies. The method is the same as the previous one but, in addition, public opinion and the media come into play here. An example of this is the open letter to Maria Luisa Carcedo, current minister of health in functions, promoted by the four “skeptical” associations mentioned above and signed by some 400 health professionals against pseudotherapies and which erroneously included Homeopathy

We insist that “they erroneously included homeopathy as pseudotherapy” because this therapy is a medical , legal, social and scientific reality , which is also not in the list of 73 pseudotherapies presented by the Government in February 2019. And again we insist wrong to label pseudotherapy homeopathy, because after that open letter came another signed by 600 health professionals who claimed their right to prescribe or recommend homeopathic medicines in freedom and without pressure .

STEP 3. Once enough media controversy has been generated, the assault on the respective governments – local, regional and national – is a piece of cake.

Three simple steps that have been repeated in France : first the University of Lille, then a rostrum against complementary therapies signed by 124 doctors in a national media, then a similar report from the Scientific Council of the Academies of European Sciences (EASAC) against homeopathy, more media pressure , the French minister asking for a report from the HAS and the subsequent decision of the Commission with dyes of little rigor and impartiality .


And history repeats itself … Now it’s Germany . Since it is fashionable, the president of the association that brings together doctors from Germany’s public health care (KBV), Andreas Gassen, has told the media that medical insurance should not cover homeopathic services to his patients. Strange question now brought to the debate when a little over half a year ago the president of the German WTO, Dr. Frank Ulrich Montgomery said that homeopathy is a complementary medicine that helps many people .

It seems that there is always someone who insists on igniting and maintaining a non-existent debate. It would be funny if it were not because it endangers the health and well-being of patients as well as their free right to choose the best treatment that suits their needs. The German case is paradigmatic since German insurers reimburse the cost of homeopathic medicine not because it is mandatory but because patients so demand it.

In Sweden , in 2011, several scientists and a nationally renowned astronaut (does that sound like it?) Contributed to the media controversy by carrying out sanitary irresponsibility as a public suicide with an overdose of a homeopathic medicine. This resource has also been used in Spain by several representatives of pseudo-skepticism, especially in social networks, with the sole objective of getting an audience.

Switzerland , on the other hand, is the most representative case in the lost art of doing things right. As in the previous examples, in 2011, the controversy led the Swiss Government to commission an exhaustive report on homeopathy that, today, represents the most complete evaluation of Homeopathic Medicine that a Government has published to date.

The Swiss Report concludes that homeopathic treatment is effective, safe and cost-effective, and that it should be included in that country’s national health program. In addition, approximately half of the population of Switzerland uses complementary and alternative medicine treatments and values ​​them positively. At older, approximately half of Swiss doctors consider complementary and alternative treatments effective. Although perhaps the most outstanding fact is that 85% of the Swiss population prefers therapies of this type and also choose that they are part of their national health program. At present, homeopathy is included in the Swiss national health system by popular referendum. In this case, fortunately RIGOR and OBJECTIVITY were imposed  The interests of the pseudo-skeptics and their plan of harassment of homeopathy were frog.

However, Europe is not its only objective. Since the skeptical lobby is international, it is not surprising that similar requests have landed, and almost simultaneously, in letter format, in the respective ministries of health of Peru and Mexico .

History repeats itself. And sadly everything presumes that it will be repeated in other American and European countries: talking about homeopathy is in fashion, and it seems that going against it even more: it makes you look fun among colleagues, it leads you to be trending topic on the Internet, it gets you a lot of likes and retuits. The medicine was never so frivolous. He never trivialized so much with the health of the patients. The professionals have never been so cynical; those who a few years ago were trained in therapies such as acupuncture and homeopathy, today are dedicated to give talks and participate in debates attacking furiously these same therapies.

There is no doubt that the consequence of all this is the erosion, erosion and unreal transformation of what is homeopathy among public opinion. We suffer from “homeopatosis”. And against this, the antidote is simple: professionalism and truthful information without prejudice. An example of a trusted health website to be recommended by everyone is Suma Homeopathy .

In short, defending homeopathy today has become, purely and simply, a matter of freedom. Because like homeopathy, in health we all add up, and that is why both professionals and patients should unite for a More Human Medicine.


When people who dont understand Homoeopathy speak for it. Thailand.


THE DEPARTMENT of Thai Traditional and Alternative Medicine has backtracked from its claim that its homeopathic formula is highly effective for dengue-fever protection. 

“It’s just a supplementary measure that needs further research,” Dr Sun-pong Ritthiruksa said yesterday in his capacity as the chair of the department’s centre for herbal medicine, Thai traditional medicine, folk medicine and alternative medicine.

He spoke up after several prominent figures, including Chulalongkorn University’s lecturer Jessada Denduangboripant, raised questions about the claim.

Sunpong himself said last Friday that a homeopathic formula made from eupatorium perfoliatum 200C had been proved effective in preventing dengue fever. His agency is now handing out it for free.

“It’s 89.9 per cent effective,” Sunpong said last Friday, just a day ahead of Asean Dengue Day, as he cited findings from a journal.

Jessada then quickly argued that homeopathy was pseudoscience, something that the Public Health Ministry should not promote.

“The promotion can be dangerous,” he warned.

Dengue fever has hit more than 28,000 people in Thailand so far this year – up by 1.7 times from the same period a year earlier. Of them, 43 died.

Sunpong said he sought to support the use of homeopathy as a supplementary measure for protection against dengue fever.

He reiterated that to prevent dengue-fever infections, people still needed to focus on measures such as changing the water in flower vases weekly, keeping their home tidy, eliminating mosquito-breeding grounds and covering water containers.

Mosquitoes are the main carriers of dengue fever.

“I am worried that people may misunderstand what I said earlier,” Sunpong said.

He then clarified that eupatorium perfoliatum 200C was not for treating dengue fever.

“If patients develop symptoms that can be associated with dengue fever, [they should] go see a doctor to get treatment based on modern medicine,” he said.

Jessada said he had looked into several studies previously associated with the department and saw multiple flaws.

According to him, the efficacy rate cited for vaccines against dengue fever is not as high as the rate found by the department’s research, hinting at the possibility that the cited efficacy rate for eupatorium perfoliatum 200C might have been exaggerated.

Jessada explained that while eupatorium perfoliatum could reduce fever and boost the immune system, there was no clear proof that it could treat or prevent dengue fever.

According to the Disease Control Department, the main factors associated with fatal cases of dengue fever are living in communities hosting a large number of mosquito larvae, buying medicine for self-treatment, delays in seeking treatments from doctors, and having underlying illnesses such as obesity, diabetes and asthma.

Statistics compiled by the Disease Control Department show the number of dengue-fever patients this year is far higher than the number five years ago.

As of June 11 this year, dengue fever hit 28,785 people in Thailand. During the same period in 2014, the number stood at 10,670. The figures from the same period from 2015 to 2018 were at 24,248, 19,029, 13,961m and 17,302 respectively.

An Indians view of the sensation method.

Re: Sankaran Sensation method


I have read the method in all the books published by Sankaran so far as also attended his seminars. It is the very enchanting video presentations at the seminars and the captivating material presented in his books that prompted me to use it side by side with the age-old traditional Hahnemannian method for some time. I concluded after a thorough study that the theoretical basis on which this entire method is based is flawed.

But such is the orchestrated hype about this method in the US and Europe that it is hard to get anything published against this method and prove to be a useless exercise that ends up in frustration.

Unfortunately, we have not evolved benchmarks to judge any method being propagated as homoeopathy and as a first step, we should do it.
The very basis on which Hahnemann founded homoeopathy was his discovery :

1. that any medicinal substance is capable of inducing a field force to distort the vital force of healthy human beings; the nature of distortion presents a recognizable field pattern and it is as true as the law of gravity or any other natural laws.

2. that the same medicine is capable of nullifying any disease force that establishes a similar distortion of vital force in a human being.

The SIMILARITY of the distorted picture or pattern of the vital force induced by the medicinal substance in a healthy human being and that created by the natural disease is essential for curative action to occur.

If Sankaran can prove that the vital sensation can be induced by a medicinal substance in healthy human beings and then prove the correspondences of this artificially induced vital sensation to the one present in the cured patient – then and then only it qualifies to be a homoeopathic method.

I hate to waste any more time discussing this method of madness, an aberration of an otherwise super genius whose convoluted thinking process reflects of a major portion of his brain cells gone awry….alas…


Hahnemann by Ameke: a Sound and Reliable Witness.

by Peter Morrell


Dream of Egypt, 1995 – Peter Morrell


Dr Wilhelm AMEKE (1847-1886)This short piece brings to the attention of others the useful work of Wilhelm Ameke from his little known book ‘A History of Homeopathy.’ Being out of print for over a century and hard to obtain, this useful text illuminates Hahnemann’s life in a fresh and masterful way. This is an interim piece I compiled recently for some lectures, and which will be extended as time permits. In due course, it is hoped that the full text of Ameke might be placed online where all can admire its many gems. This selection mostly focuses upon Ameke’s description of Hahnemann’s views on many clinical matters and snippets regarding the origin of homeopathy. It also highlights what is unusual, important and remarkable in his character as a physician.


Dr Joseph Von QUARIN (1733-1814)Although Hahnemann retained enormous affection and respect for his teacher at Vienna, Dr von Quarin, it remains certain that von Quarin “was an advocate of bleeding till the day of his death,” [Ameke, 59] in 1812. Hahnemann stated, “I owe to him whatever there is of physician in me.” [Ameke, 58] Although Hahnemann “employed bleeding…but he always applied it cautiously.” [Ameke, 67] Though as early “as 1784 he contended…against bleeding,” [Ameke, 67] yet “he still bled in 1797…and [even as late as] 1800 he was not an absolute opponent of it.” [Ameke, 67] But he always felt it was abused and used to excess by most physicians. He “was a great enemy of coffee, but a great advocate of exercise and open air…change of climate and residence at the seaside.” [Ameke, 60] On the therapeutic use of cold water “Hahnemann writes at length…and gives exact instructions.” [Ameke, 62] He always gave “only one remedy at a time, and carefully watched its effects.” [Ameke, 74] For every addition of a “second or a third [remedy] only deranges the object we have in view.” [Ameke, 86] Giving only one drug, we must “wait till its action is exhausted before giving another.” [Ameke, 87] Once he was convinced of something “he enunciated it with the greatest precision, and did not easily allow himself to be turned from it.” [Ameke, 63]

Even as a young physician, Hahnemann seems to “have been unaffected by the prevalent belief in authority,” [Ameke, 59] preferring instead to formulate his own medical views, very largely based upon his powers of reflection and his very keen observational powers.

Tendencies Hahnemann condemned

Dr Samuel HAHNEMANN (1755-1843)In 1808 Hahnemann sharply condemned the main method of “treating most diseases by scouring out the stomach and bowels.” [Ameke, 94] This is also the “method which regards the diseased body as a mere chemically decomposed mass,” [Ameke, 94] and which regards diseases as having “no other originating cause but mucosities…[inspiring treatments that seek the] combat of putridity.” [Ameke, 94] Such a view also pretends that only by “the strength of the doses of most powerful and costly medicines,” [Ameke, 94] can such disease ever be subdued or cured. Hahnemann bemoans the “search into the internal essence of diseases,” [Ameke, 95] which he regards as an utterly futile endeavour. He also condemns this system as one that respects only “the mechanical origin of diseases…[and] which derives diseases from the original form of the parts.” [Ameke, 95] Such a view he regards as too simplistic, too mechanistic and not sufficiently holistic in its perception of the living organism.

Hahnemann condemned those medical systems that claimed “most diseases were produced by impure and acid humours which were to be expelled from the body,” [Ameke, 42] or which claimed that “most illnesses resulted from gastric impurities, especially bile,” [Ameke, 43] and which therefore believed that “the removal of these matters by emetics and purgatives was the principal means resorted to.” [Ameke, 43] As far as Hahnemann was concerned, such medical systems incorrectly concluded, “purgatives and emetics demonstrated the truth of these theories.” [Ameke, 43] One such idea was “infarcts…an unnatural condition of the blood vessels…distended in various places by ill-concocted, variously degenerated, fluid-bereft, inspissated, viscid, bilious, polypous and coagulated blood…” [Ameke, 43] Hahnemann had nothing but contempt for such theories and regarded them as entirely imaginary concepts and dangerous fantasies with no reality whatever. Therefore, he was equally dismissive of the methods employed such as “clysters…to which various appropriate drugs were added…employed to disperse these infarctus.” [Ameke, 44] This treatment with clysters [enemas] “was much in vogue among physicians, patients and even healthy persons, for many years.” [Ameke, 45]

Hahnemann was as dismissive of clysters and the theories of infarcts as he was of the strong mixed drugs also in vogue at the same time. Such remedies as “senna, spirits of wine, dandelion, rhubarb, sal-ammoniac, mercury, dog’s grass and antimony…which were supposed to cleanse the tubes and passages of the human body from their foul accumulations.” [Ameke, 45] Hahnemann simply did not believe the monstrous theory that every patient had these mythical obstructions and poisons. He was therefore wholly opposed to the idea that they must all be “sweated and purged, puked, bled and salivated,” [Ameke, 45] back to health by these heroic measures.

It is no surprise therefore that he roundly condemned and dismissed on instinct “bleeding, cold, emetics, purgatives, diaphoretics.” [Ameke, 46] He denounced the “vomiting, purging and sweating,” [Ameke, 46] view that “inflammatory matters, impure fermenting substances, acridities and degenerated bile,” [Ameke, 91] were the causes of disease or that they should be “energetically evacuated,” [Ameke, 91] in order to cure the patient. All such talk he depicts as merely a “euphemism for emetics and purgatives,” [Ameke, 92] and indeed, for “the lancet, tepid drinks, miserable diet, emetics, purgatives…[which] threatened to destroy our generation.” [Ameke, 96]

He denounced the use of “blisters, baths, fomentations, anodynes, and repeated enemata,” [Ameke, 68] just as he maintained that “refrigerating and laxative salts, watery drinks, and bleeding act as poisons. Emetics and blisters do harm.” [Ameke, 68] To most practitioners it must have been “very tempting to utilise the great chemical discoveries in the treatment of disease,” [Ameke, 50] but Hahnemann [almost alone] successfully resisted this temptation. Most physicians were “too impatient to utilise,” [Ameke, 50] new discoveries, too eager “to reap when they had barely finished sowing.” [Ameke, 50] They dismally failed to “observe how the functions of their patients were carried on.” [Ameke, 53] Even at this early stage, one can see that Hahnemann was cautiously and judiciously trying to work out precisely why the medicine he had been taught did not work and one can detect his endeavour to find a harmless yet efficacious therapeutic method.

In the early 1790s, he “gave one remedy at a time, and carefully watched its effects.” [Ameke, 74] This sums up his approach very accurately. He also “succeeded in achieving many splendid cures by his simple method of treatment…[soon having] the reputation of a careful and successful practitioner.” [Ameke, 74-5] His basic powers of patient observation were truly remarkable. Not only did he want to know “what is hurtful or irrational,” [Ameke, 87] in the medicine of his day but why and how one can proceed to escape from such a useless muddle. In medicine, he despised whatever was harmful and what did not make sense, usually both together. “That is the essence of science: ask an impertinent question, and you are on the way to a pertinent answer.” [Jacob Bronowski (1908–1974), The Ascent of Man, ch. 4 (1973)] Hahnemann had the immense audacity and conviction to “prescribe one single, simple medicament and nothing more,” [Ameke, 97] and then simply wait and observe. This was the essence of his approach for the reform of medicine.

Other influences were also at work in their impact on medicine. One problem that reared its head was “the whirligig of natural philosophy” [Ameke, 48] which had taken hold of many people, most of whom were “suffering from the spirit of the age.” [Ameke, 48] None of this brought any benefit to medicine, according to Hahnemann. It just gave the signal and increased the tendency to invent more wild theories. Yet, in therapeutics, disease was increasingly regarded as a “departure from normal form and composition, that is, anatomical and chemical change.” [Ameke, 49] Consequently, “one theory was superseded by another,” [Ameke, 53] and people frequently switched sides many times. As a result, “dogmatism and a persecuting spirit,” [Ameke, 57] became the dominant spirit, just as if religious sectarianism were breaking out in medicine and inspiring many unnecessarily “embittered disputes.” [Ameke, 58] Eighteenth century medicine was crisis-torn, with rival theories pitched against each other in an unseemly battle for supremacy.

As early as 1784, he “speaks contemptuously of fashionable physicians.” [Ameke, 76] He also tried to “direct the attention of his fellow-practitioners to the many absurdities of the day.” [Ameke, 77] Why? because he wanted them to be more critical. A good example is when he says, “we must forcibly sever ourselves from these deified oracles if we wish to shake off the yoke of ignorance and credulity.” [Ameke, 77] He rebelled against any deference to medical authority [because so and so says this] as a means of validating a method or concept. He insisted on thinking for himself and experiment as a superior path. He infinitely preferred consulting “nature and experience,” [Ameke, 126] to any medical theory.

Hahnemann was taught the medicine of mixed strong drugs, which he confessed, “clung to him more obstinately than the miasma of any disease.” [Ameke, 78] Although in the first few years of his practice he adhered to this approach, “he was gradually emancipating himself from this bad system.” [Ameke, 78] It did not work, in spite of his best efforts. As early as 1784, “he advocates a simple method…instead of the farrago of contradictory prescriptions.” [Ameke, 78] In the year 1798, “he inveighs against the physicians who love prescriptions containing many ingredients…[regarding it as] the height of empiricism…the employment of mixtures of strong medicines.” [Ameke, 81] He was realising that the chief problems were mixed drugs, strong doses and damaging methods like blood-letting, purges and enemas. Nothing in the medicine of his day was either curative or gentle.

Instead of mixed drugs he would increasingly “give only one simple remedy at a time…[Ameke, and so] in these simplest maladies he gave single simple remedies out of the store of existing drugs which was then small.” [Ameke, 80] His careful and methodical approach reveals just “how earnest was his striving after truth and how great his anxiety for the improvement of therapeutics.” [Ameke, 85] He especially “surpassed his mixture-loving contemporaries in the gifts of observation and investigation.” [Ameke, 85] Hahnemann confidently declares that, “using several drugs at once…is the true sign of charlatanism. Quackery always goes hand in hand with complicated mixtures…[which is] so far removed from the simple ways and laws of nature.” [Ameke, 86]

In 1805, he states “a single simple remedy is always…the most beneficial…it is never necessary to give two at once.” [Ameke, 86] He denounces “drugs…which must fight against diseases,” [Ameke, 87] as deriving from a misunderstanding of sickness with such doctors viewing patients “through glasses tinged with ideal systems,” [Ameke, 87] which are utterly useless means to cure sickness. They did this rather than investigate matters for themselves, as he was doing. They obstinately clung to theory and eschewed the spirit of empiricism Hahnemann loved and which was the guiding beacon of his life. No physicians other than Hahnemann “preached this important truth with such energy and such conviction.” [Ameke, 87] He “attacked deference to authority in therapeutics as early as 1786 and 1790.” [Ameke, 87]

Dr Samuel HAHNEMANN (1755-1843)It is perfectly true that “no physician since Paracelsus had dared to expose with such frankness and boldness the miserable condition of the medical treatment of the period…[and] that requires a thorough reform from top to bottom.” [Ameke, 98] Is modern medicine really any better? Is it less harmful, more logical or more curative? Which, if any?

In therapeutics, Hahnemann regarded the many who became “involved in gossamer subtleties,” [Ameke, 97] as fools, because such was “a misdirection of mental energy,” [Ameke, 97] that might be much better employed for the more serious task of observing patients and using single drugs in small doses. Rather than do that, they foolishly preferred to use “sweetening, diluting, purifying, loosening, thickening, cooling and evacuating measures,” [Ameke, 95] that would not cure the patient anyway. Therefore, in his view, patients faced “the wretched and hopeless choice of one of the numerous methods, almost all equally impotent…[with] no fixed therapeutic principles of acknowledged value.” [Ameke, 99] In medicine, such was the outrageous state of affairs in the early years of the 19th century.

Good Reputation

Hahnemann “acquired a great reputation for his improvements in the practice of medicine, in pharmacology, and especially in hygiene.” [Ameke, iv] Hufeland, for example, “never lost respect for Hahnemann’s genius and services to medicine.” [Ameke, iv] As a translator Hahnemann always “intercalates various improvements and inventions.” [Ameke, 12] He was widely regarded as “a writer who has improved and perfected,” [Ameke, 14] any text translation he undertook. This was no chance comment. Numerous examples exist of this observation. Numerous honours and accomplishments in chemistry and pharmacy preceded his discovery of homeopathy, what Ameke calls “his pre-homeopathic labours.” [Ameke, x] Various writers refer to “Hahnemann’s superiority,” [Ameke, 18] or to this “very valuable book by my esteemed friend, Dr Samuel Hahnemann.” [Ameke, 18]

These comments mostly allude to his innumerable minor discoveries and embellishments to the art of chemistry, or to the value of his translation footnotes all completed before the emergence of homeopathy. For example, “in 1788, Hahnemann discovered the solubility of metallic sulphates in boiling nitric acid.” [Ameke, 28] Another is “the test for wine invented by Dr Hahnemann [which] has especially pleased me.” [Ameke, 29] Or “Hahnemann’s mercury, an excellent and mild preparation, the usefulness of which has been proved.” [Ameke, 32] He is variously described as “a capable physician,” [Ameke, 75] and “one of the most distinguished physicians of Germany…of matured experience and reflection…a man rendered famous by his writings.” [Ameke, 75]

In 1799 one writer alludes to Hahnemann by calling him “a man who has made himself a name in Germany both as a chemist and a practitioner [who] deserves especial recommendation,” [Ameke, 37] and adds that “every article gives evidence of having been written with the greatest care.” [Ameke, 37] Another critic expresses his admiration for “a man who has conferred so many benefits on science…by his valuable translations…that are faithful and successful…[who has] added precious notes which expand and elucidate [the original]” [Ameke, 40] such that “he has thus enhanced the value of the work.” [Ameke, 40] So highly regarded were Hahnemann’s translations “which he has enriched with his own notes.” [Ameke, 40] These “great many explanatory and supplementary remarks…give the translation a great advantage over the original.” [Ameke, 40]

Such writers could clearly appreciate the “thoroughness of his emendations…his short notes…[which] serve to explain the text…and which is enhanced by the translator’s notes.” [Ameke, 40-41] Such comments reveal the clear and unambiguous recognition which he received for his “thorough pharmaceutical knowledge and industry…this celebrated chemist…this meritorious physician…the meritorious Hahnemann…whom chemistry has to thank for many important discoveries.” [Ameke, 41] He is unanimously applauded as one who “has won for himself unfading laurels,” [Ameke, 42] for his contributions to science. Hahnemann was “so much respected and renowned for his valuable services,” [Ameke, 90] that he did not require to “to make himself more popular with the German public.” [Ameke, 90]

Dr Samuel HAHNEMANN (1755-1843)When Hahnemann correctly stated that “Arsenic does not contain muriatic acid…[this showed] Hahnemann’s superiority,” [Ameke, 18] in points of chemistry. In all his translations, “accuracy prevails everywhere,” [Ameke, 22] and reflects the “extreme care he employed in his labours.” [Ameke, 22] As early as 1784, “Hahnemann advocated the crystallisation of tartar emetic.” [Ameke, 24] It was in the fine details of his corrections and footnote additions that he earned his reputation as a meticulous, highly knowledgeable, diligent and thus reliable scientific translator. In time, he garnered a similar reputation for his work reforming pharmacy, for example, “the regulation and sale of poisons,” [Ameke, 34] the “preservation of odoriferous substances,” [Ameke, 34] and the “evaporation of extracts over water baths.” [Ameke, 34] Ameke also lists many pages of examples of his contributions to pharmacy and examples of his recommended small doses for drugs of all types.

In such innumerable ways Hahnemann was considered to have “enriched our therapeutic thesaurus.” [Ameke, 35] In every case, they all prove “how thoroughly Hahnemann had studied the subject,” [Ameke, 34] in question, whether it was botany, pharmacy or chemistry. It meant that when he made a statement “every page shows that the well informed author speaks from experience,” [Ameke, 37] it shows his great diligence, that he composed work of more than “an ordinary character,” [Ameke, 37] that he always produced “useful work,” [Ameke, 38] and that “he surpassed most of them in knowledge of the subjects,” [Ameke, 38] on which he expounded. Such factors considerably enhanced his scientific credentials.

Dose Reduction

Hahnemann “even wished to see the names of diseases abolished.” [Ameke, 116] Though he recognised the obvious convenience of disease classification schemes, he “always advocated individualisation and taught it systematically.” [Ameke, 116] He felt that giving diseases names was a highly misleading habit that inevitably led to disreputable rote prescribing, and to viewing a sickness as an actual thing. Though he did use crude drugs throughout the 1790s, he developed a peculiar method of administering the drug “in very small but continually increasing doses, till some severe symptoms manifest themselves.” [Ameke, 119] He later called this the ‘primary toxic action’ of a drug. Then the dose was abruptly stopped and beneficial results awaited. He later called this the ‘curative secondary reaction’ of the vital force elicited by a drug [see Organon §57, 59, 63, 64-6, 69, 112, 114-5, 130, 133, 137-8, 161 for primary and secondary effects of drugs]. He gradually diminished the doses he used throughout that decade. He always used smaller doses than his contemporaries, and experimented a great deal in achieving good results from the tiniest doses. These trials obviously flowed from his conviction that large doses were intrinsically harmful and felt it was his duty to find a saner, more rational and less damaging approach to the whole question of dosage of drugs. He soon saw the reform of drug dosage as absolutely crucial for any reform of medicine itself.

Mercury in syphilis is probably “the only instance after 1799 in which he recommends stronger doses.” [Ameke, 121] His method “began with small ones and gradually increased them up to the point of slight toxic action.” [Ameke, 121] In this manner he aimed to transform himself into “the zealous, careful observer, the conscientious physician.” [Ameke, 121] Though he had not as yet “raised the smallness of the dose to a general therapeutic principle,” [Ameke, 121] yet this practice of unrelenting dose experimentation “was peculiar to him, and distinguished him from all his colleagues.” [Ameke, 121] He also “noted accurately the duration of action,” [Ameke, 121] of drugs that he used. No-one else was doing this. And all the while these experiments formed an essential part of “his laudable endeavours to attain to simplicity of treatment.” [Ameke, 121]

In recommending smaller doses for numerous drugs, Hahnemann was basing his view on direct observations of the actions of drugs on the body. Repeatedly, he grounds his medical views not in high-faluting theories but through consulting “nature and experience,” [Ameke, 126] as his chief guides in all that he says. In the footnotes to Cullen [1790], Monro [1791] and the Edinburgh Dispensatorium [1797], he disagrees with almost every dosage listed by the original author, concluding always that “large doses…must do harm.” [Ameke, 126] Instinctively, he rebelled against large doses as harmful.

In every case, therefore, he recommends “an incredibly small quantity,” [Ameke, 127] of the drugs he discusses, because the large doses “multiplied experience will not allow me to advise.” [Ameke, 127] The results “of the zealous and careful researches of our genial investigator forced upon him…the conviction that the doses…accepted as normal, were much too large.” [Ameke, 127] History records “no instance…of a physician ever having attempted to determine the question of the suitable dose with such zealous endeavour as the clear-sighted, indefatigable and thoughtful Hahnemann.” [Ameke, 127]

Dr Samuel HAHNEMANN (1755-1843)Severing his link with tradition, and basing his views solely upon direct observation and experience, he “proceeded still further in the diminution of the dose.” [Ameke, 128] Nor did he recommend drugs on the old basis. He did not aim “to produce emesis, purgation, or narcosis; neither did he employ them to cleanse the blood of acridities…cutting the phlegm, softening of indurations, or destroying parasites.” [Ameke, 128-9] What such low dose preparations he used did, was to “favourably influence the curative process.” [Ameke, 129] This means they assist the natural healing powers. This was a radically new therapeutic concept.

Furthermore, he found that small doses of the best remedy would create “as great an impression as if they were infants at the breast.” [Ameke, 129] By this he meant, “the sensitiveness of the human body to medicines…transcends all belief.” [Ameke, 129] He especially means sensitivity to similar medicines. He himself was “astounded at his discovery.” [Ameke, 129] He too regarded as incredible “the results obtained by a millionth, a billionth, etc, part of a grain of medicine.” [Ameke, 129] As is now well known, he soon went on to obtain “results which could not be obtained with the crude substances.” [Ameke, 131] Drugs, which obviously contained no detectable substance, still “possessed great healing power.” [Ameke, 131] They heal by their similarity to the case totality and by stimulating the innate self-healing powers.

This breakthrough in dose reduction and medicine preparation also meant that many previously “highly poisonous substances,” [Ameke, 131] could now be brought into harmless use as healing agents. They could indeed be “converted into…powerful remedial agents in the hands of a skilful physician.” [Ameke, 131] Dismissing the views of his “dogmatical and credulous predecessors,” [Ameke, 133] whose theories and “deductions ran counter to the maxims of experience,” [Ameke, 133] Hahnemann, as “a practical physician,” [Ameke, 133] grounded his medical views solely in the “science of experience.” [Ameke, 133] He roundly condemned the “imaginings of physicians,” [Ameke, 133] which he felt to have no place in any rational healing art. What he also called “speculative refinements, arbitrary axioms…dogmatic assumptions…[and the] magnificent conjuring games of so-called theoretical medicine.” [Ameke, 134] Instead, Hahnemann had respect solely for “a science of pure experience…knowledge of the disease to be treated and the actions of drugs.” [Ameke, 134] These, he insists can only be deduced “from pure experience and observation,” [Ameke, 134] rather than from signatures or ‘old wives tales,’ which he despised.


Dr Robert Ellis DUDGEON (1820-1904)In his own house “he liked to wear a brightly-flowered dressing-gown, yellow slippers and black velvet cap.” [Ameke, 157] His long pipe “was seldom out of his hand, and this indulgence in tobacco was the only relaxation from his abstemious mode of life…his food extremely frugal.” [Ameke, 157] When seeing patients, instead of a bureau, “he used a large plain square table on which three or four huge folios lay, in which he had entered the histories of the maladies of his patients…[and] in which he wrote down their cases…with the exactness which he recommends in his Organon.” [Ameke, 157]


Wilhelm Ameke, History of Homœopathy, with an appendix on the present state of University medicine, translated by A. E. Drysdale, edited by R. E. Dudgeon, London: E. Gould & Son, 1885.