Tag Archives: Remedies

What’s in a name? Hahnemann’s warning to beware of disease names

By Vera Resnick

shaHahnemann’s warning to prescribers – beware of disease names…

Treating fibromyalgia? pneumonia? asthma? cancer? gingivitis? diptheria? meningitis?

In his introductions to provings, Hahnemann often gives a list of diseases where the remedy in question has been helpful. Many seem to see this as a clear therapeutic indication for the diseases named. It is noticeable that Hahnemann himself, a very prolific writer, did not write any form of therapeutic catalogue. Continue reading

Advertisements

Viewed through proving: Sepia has left the gym…

exercise sudoku“… It is a sluggish state of the body which requires exercise, and violent exercise to keep it in a state of comfort. …The … symptoms are … better from exercise in the open air…”

What remedy does this describe? Sepia, of course. We all know that Sepia is better for lots of exercise. Don’t we?

This is where it gets interesting. In the proving, for the most part when any physical exertion is mentioned, it’s actually a cause for aggravation. Not amelioration. Walking is mentioned over 90 times in this proving. Around 7 instances are in the introduction, and amelioration from walking appears around 8 times in a proving containing 1655 symptoms. All the rest – approximately 75 mentions of aggravation from walking by my count. Around 21 on these mentions relate to walking in the open air, and Sepia provers did note sensitivity to cold, but that still leaves us with over 50 instances where walking aggravated.

The opening sentences are quoted from Kent’s lectures – most of those reading this probably first met Sepia through Kent. We met this unfeminine female, who is cold, angular, depressed, worn out, and needs violent exercise to keep her human. Add to that the image of the ink-spitting cuttlefish, attacking with sudden sarcasm and retreating – it all gets very picturesque, so to speak. The problem with all these images is that they stick so firmly in memory that even once you know they are fallacious they are very difficult to dislodge. I remember a live case where the homoeopath pointed at the patient, who shrank back in dismay, and declared in tones that brooked no argument – “behold Sepia, fix the image of this patient in your memories!” Needless to say (after such an intro) Sepia didn’t work…

It gets even more interesting however when we look at the therapeutic pocket book, where Boenninghausen included Sepia in amelioration from physical exertion – in 4 points. This brings us to the issue of the grading in the TPB, which is often erroneously considered to reflect the intensity of the symptom. The significance of the grading relates to the extent to which that symptom was verified in clinical use. A symptom appearing in 1 point is a completely valid remedy symptom – just one which has been used less and therefore verified less in the clinic. Sepia in 4 points in amelioration from physical exertion means that Boenninghausen saw this amelioration over and over again, sufficiently so to include it in his carefully and meticulously crafted TPB. Sepia also appears in the TPB under different expressions of aggravation from physical exertion, but only appears in one, two or three points.

So we have the proving – pointing to aggravation from physical exertion, repeated over and over again by provers and by Hahnemann himself in his introduction to the proving. And we have Boenninghausen’s TPB weighting the balance in the direction of amelioration from physical exertion. What’s the “take home” from all this?

I’d suggest the following:

1. Blank out the Kentian “image” (and those presented by other homoeopaths before and since). This image is not helpful for accurate, focused prescribing.

2. Amelioration from physical exertion was presented by Boenninghausen – a master clinician. This strengthens a modality which only found moderate expression in the proving. There is nothing to negate the symptom, and many clinical cases, together with Boenninghausen’s grading in the TPB, to support it.

And possibly most importantly:

3. If Sepia looks like a good fit but the patient is not ameliorated from physical exertion, or is even aggravated by it – don’t rule out Sepia. If it looks like the best remedy for the case, give it. Even if the patient is fair, round, has blue eyes, and is a 15 year old boy…

Hahnemann’s First Provings

hahnemann111Hahnemann’s First Provings.

by Peter Morrell

For the full original article click here
From the earliest beginnings until now, the materia medica has consisted only of false suppositions and fancies, which is as good as no materia medica at all.” [The Organon, v.110]

“Medicine tests [provings] constitute one of the most critical points of Hahnemann’s teachings. This grandiose attempt to acquire unhypothetical medical experience was outwardly justified by the complete lack of objective methods of investigation and experimental systems in those days…[Hahnemann had] the courage to break away from hypotheses and systems…” [Gumpert, 122]

This essay explores the early provings of Hahnemann and attempts to place them into some kind of historical and conceptual context.

Introduction

The first provings of Hahnemann really need to be measured in two ways… first, against what came after them and the way homeopathy unfolded forwards from that point, which is the view most homeopaths adopt. And second against what existed before the provings and where he got his remedies from. The plain fact is that most of the remedies initially came from the allopathic materia medica. Without doubt also, translation work opened up for him “a world rich in the most glorious prospects,” [Goethe] of medical data, therapeutic hints, clinical observations and notes about drug actions, which must have enormously enriched his medical thinking and which practically no-one else was party to. So, Hahnemann must have been imbibing a wealth of clinical and therapeutic ideas from his many translations and historical researches, during the 1780s and 1790s.

Measuring backwards from what followed is an inherently deceptive approach as it fails to fully illuminate certain crucial aspects of the project as it must have been conceived in Hahnemann’s mind. The idea of experimentation on healthy subjects was more or less floating in the air in that epoch: Haller expressed it clearly, Stork also and Alexander, for example, made in 1766 a proving of Camphora some years before Hahnemann’s experiment with Cinchona bark. The idea of conducting provings probably came to Hahnemann from Von Haller:

“Indeed, a medicine must first of all be essayed in a healthy body, without any foreign admixture; when the odour and taste have been examined, a small dose must be taken, and attention must be paid to every change that occurs, to the pulse, the temperature, respiration and excretions. Then, having examined the symptoms encountered in the healthy person, one may proceed to trials in the body of a sick person.” [von Haller, 12]

However, four key points seem clear about the first provings. Firstly, they derived from his studies and detailed knowledge of drugs in use at the time; secondly, that as the project evolved empirically he must have been made acutely aware that the number, subtlety and diversity of symptoms produced by a drug were much greater than the clinical records had initially suggested; thirdly, that he involved members of his family and circle of close friends from an early stage: “the family…and every free moment of every one of them, from the oldest to the youngest, was made use of for the testing of medicines and the gathering of the most precise information on their observed effects.” [Gumpert, 114] Fourthly, he realised that the instructions to provers had to involve them recording everything, every subtle change in their psycho-physical totality and consciousness and not just the main physical symptoms. Hahnemann gives “pure experiment, careful observation and accurate experience alone,” [Gumpert, 144] as the sole determining factors that can generate any authentic medical theory. He “demanded a complete break with everything,”[Gumpert, 149] that had gone before.

He sought “to discover the specific relations of certain medicines to certain diseases, to certain organs and tissues, he strove to do away with the blind chimney sweeper’s methods of dulling symptoms.” [Gumpert, 99] He “instituted “provings” of drugs upon himself, members of his family, friends, students and fellow practitioners, keeping all under the most rigid scrutiny and control, and carefully recording every fact and the conditions under which it was elicited.” [Close, 147-8]

“If one has tested a considerable number of simple medicines on healthy people in this way… then one has for the first time a true materia medica: a collection of the authentic, pure, reliable effects of simple medicinal substances in themselves; a natural pharmacopoeia…” [The Organon, v.143]

The second and fourth points meant that Hahnemann was more or less forced into a deeper appreciation of the reality of holism in the organism simply by conducting provings, in other words from his empirical studies. This must have been a wholly unexpected aspect for him. What started as merely a test of one drug soon became a revelation as it “ceased to be a little trickle…it became a broad flood,” [Wells] and an entirely new materia medica took birth, unfolding before him in incredible and undreamt-of detail. The third point suggests that he realised at a very early stage that a drug’s impact upon the female system is rather different from its impact upon the male, and though complementary to each other, these two aspects of a proving reflect entirely different dimensions of the same drug. From the minute details of a proving, a new sense of completeness eventually developed in his mind, so spawning a synthesis: the drug picture. Likewise, in accordance with his initial aim in conducting provings, he obtained for each drug a reliable database, based on experiment and in which personal responses as well as general effects were all compiled into the final picture.

The importance of the first point simply means that he obtained his first hunches about the therapeutic activity of drugs partly from using them himself, and partly “as he explored the muttering tomb,” [Auden, New Year Letter, 217] of his translation work, during which he ‘saw into’ the apparent sphere of action of a drug from reading the accounts of many others in the past who had observed their action or seen them cure specific diseases or symptom clusters. Thus, he probably realised in advance of the actual provings that most drugs tend to have a multi-faceted action upon the organism.

Always intimately tied in with his views of drugs was his interest in and study of poisonings: “I found from the toxicological reports of earlier writers that the effects of large quantities of noxious substances ingested by healthy people…largely coincided with my own findings from experiments with those substances on myself or other healthy people.” [Hahnemann, 1810, v.110] “He collected histories of cases of poisoning. His purpose was to establish a physiological doctrine of medical remedies, free from all suppositions, and based solely on experiments.” [Gumpert, 92] The proving is in fact merely a mild and subtle form of poisoning, what we might term a ‘micro-poisoning,’ during which the power of the drug ‘takes hold’ of the prover and so reveals its therapeutic ‘sphere of action’.

samuel_hahnemann_s

First Proving

His studies of drugs had led him to the realisation that ‘single drugs in moderate doses’ offered up the best if not the only hope of creating a gentle and effective system of curative medicine. That point implicitly involved a prior and firm rejection of the Galenic diktat of using mixed drugs in strong doses, because instinctively and temperamentally he was “a most passionate opponent of mixed doses that contained a large number of ingredients.” [Gumpert, 96] This sets the scene for the first proving, of Cinchona in 1790, deriving as it did both from a translation work and from his own intimate knowledge and personal use of the drug in question. Here we have to note a possible peculiar sensitivity of Hahnemann himself to Cinchona bark, as he had contracted malaria in his youth, during his Hermanstadt journey.

It is important to recall that the first proving was not actually designed at the outset to study the effect of a drug on the entire human system, to prove a drug, as is often claimed. No, rather it was specifically designed to test a claim by Cullen that Cinchona acts curatively on fever because of its bitter action on the stomach. It is precisely this point which Hahnemann set about to test for himself: “in the following year, 1790, Hahnemann translated Cullen’s Materia Medica. Cullen (II. 108) explains the efficacy of Cinchona in intermittent fever by the “strengthening power it exerts on the stomach,” and adds, ” that he has never met with anything in any book which made him doubt the truth of his view.” [Ameke, 62] It is this point which inspired Hahnemann to see if the drug would indeed affect the stomach as Cullen suggested. To his surprise, he found it did not do that and his testing of it proved to be a revelation in other ways.

Hahnemann disagreed with Cullen’s theory of the action of Cinchona upon the stomach and so resolved to test the drug on himself. He “criticised the opinion of Cullen that the action of Peruvian bark [quinine] was that of a tonic to the stomach…and proceeded to argue that quinine acts in malaria because in healthy people it can produce symptoms similar to intermittent fever.” [Bodman, 3-4] In this first proving experiment, Hahnemann observed symptoms broadly similar to those of malaria, including spasms and fever. [Cook, 59; Haehl, I, 37, 39] With Cinchona, he had “produced in himself the symptoms of intermittent fever.” [Haehl, vol. 1, 39]

Much has been written about the first proving that need not be repeated here, but the main consequence of it conceptually for Hahnemann was that after ‘single drugs in moderate doses,’ the first proving firmly and irreversibly established his third axiom of homeopathy: the law of similars, and realisation of its significance must have finally extinguished any remaining fragmentary attachments Hahnemann may still have harboured concerning the therapeutic possibilities of contraries: “dying to embers from their native fire!” [Keats, line 366] The “similia similibus principle,” [Gumpert, 96] was indeed Hahnemann’s “brilliance of idea,” [Gumpert, 97] and was also “the doctrine which was to redeem him from the medical nihilism of despair.” [Gumpert, 104] This new principle, “was to him what the falling apple was to Newton, and the swinging lamp in the Baptistery at Pisa was to Galileo.” [Dudgeon, xxi] As Dudgeon says, “from this single experiment his mind appears to have been impressed with the conviction that the pathogenetic effects of medicines would give the key to their therapeutic powers.” [Dudgeon, xxi]

With the three axioms comprising the core of his newly emerging system: single drugs, moderate doses and similars, the drug proving thus became the fourth homeopathic axiom and around these axioms homeopathy not only more sharply crystallised and defined its doctrines and methods, but in this manner it finally separated itself entirely from its Galenic predecessor, emerging “from the ashes as a new phoenix,” [Hirsch, et al] and shaking off any remaining association with the dreaded ‘bleed and purge’ method of mixed drugs in high doses that Hahnemann had so detested and which had filled him with horror even from his first medical lectures in Leipzig and Vienna, for Hahnemann was indeed, “a most passionate opponent of mixed doses that contained a large number of ingredients.” [Gumpert, 96]

1790s Provings

Now, it would seem, Samuel Hahnemann towered like a colossus over the medical past and potentially over its entire future. It was doubtless at this “a crucial moment,” [Doren, 7] that he finally becomes a truly great pioneer, engaged in something momentous, prior to which he was only a potentially important figure. At this point, he probably first received “a hint of his future greatness,” [Doren, p.7], because it can hardly have escaped his attention that here was a magnificent moment, a turning point not only of solving a huge problem he had first set out to explore in 1783 when he gave up medical practice, but because in those moments had he not heard the “loud hymns that were the royal wives of silence?” [Auden, Kairos & Logos, 309] and seen the “shadows and sunny glimmerings,” [Palgrave, Wordsworth] of a new plan before him, the germ of an entirely new system pinned out like an architect’s drawing: “my system of medicine has nothing in common with the ordinary medical art, but is in every respect its exact opposite…the new method of treatment, called homeopathy, being the exact opposite of the ordinary medical art hitherto practised, has no preparations that it could give to the apothecary, has no compound remedies…” [Gumpert, 176-7] He had also manifested, “the courage to break away from hypotheses and systems…zones fatal to the human spirit.” [Gumpert, 122]

All he now needed were more provings—many more provings—and the opportunity to utilise these newly proven drugs on patients, on actual cases of sickness. “Day after day, he tested medicines on himself and others. He collected histories of cases of poisoning. His purpose was to establish a…doctrine of medical remedies, free from all suppositions, and based solely on experiments.” [Gumpert, 92]

“Many before Hahnemann, from Hippocrates down, had glimpses of the law [of similars], and some had tried to make use of it therapeutically; but all had failed because of their inability to properly graduate and adapt the dose.” [Close, 1924, p. 215]

The bright prospect that emerged from the provings meant that everything that had gone before was only theoretical, but now he stood on the brink of a new practical method and the exultation of being able to go beyond and take forward the work of his vitalist predecessors, Stahl, van Helmont and Paracelsus [“Paracelsus’s system…was a rude form of homoeopathy…but it was not equal in value to Hahnemann’s system…” [Dudgeon, 14]], in being able to adapt that previously elusive and will-o-the-wisp ‘law of similars’ into a practical working method, rather than just a theoretical aim, a hopelessly wistful medical dream: “he fought with redoubled energy for the purity of medicine,” [Gumpert, 96] and “strove to do away with the blind chimney sweeper’s methods of dulling symptoms.” [Gumpert, 99] The grim and ground-breaking task before him in the 1790s was therefore to conduct as many provings as possible. And that is precisely what he did: “undeterred by the magnitude of the task, Hahnemann set about creating a materia medica which should embody the facts of drug action upon the healthy.” [Close, 147]

It is worth stating that very little of a hard factual nature is known about precisely which drugs he proved and when. We have to try to piece that together from only “a few crumbs.” [Adams] Although in 1790 Hahnemann had only proved one drug in Cinchona, yet he had proved 27 by 1805, when he published his Fragmenta: “Hahnemann’s ‘Fragmenta de viribus medicamentorum positivis’…gives us, for the first time, an insight into the remarkable, and so far unknown, methods of investigation, which he employed. It supplies reports on the tests of twenty seven medicines the results of years of experiment on himself and his family.” [Gumpert, 122]

Given that the Fragmenta probably contained work completed up to the year 1804, when he settled in Torgau, then he had proved 27 drugs in only 14 years…almost two per year. Even by modern standards that is impressive progress. Indeed, such impressive progress for a “a cautious man, notwithstanding his utmost circumspection,” [Wollstonecraft, p.12] like Hahnemann suggests that he knew very clearly in his own mind that he was engaged in something “supremely important,” [Columbia, 7] and which demanded his complete attention at all times. Otherwise, such progress would inevitably have been slower, far less impressive, less driven and presumably much more haphazard.

The actual situation is complicated by the fact that in the same decade he was moving about all over Saxony with his growing family. The decade of the 1790s sees Hahnemann living in many different places and coincides with his most intense period of “wandering, yearning, curious—with restless explorations.” [Whitman, line 91] He changed town or residence fifteen times between 1789 and 1805: He lived in Leipzig, [1789-92], then “in 1791, poverty compelled him to remove from Leipzig to the little village of Stotteritz.” [Bradford] In 1792 he was in Gotha [1792], then Georgenthal [summer 1792 to May 1793], nursing Klockenbring; Molschleben [1793-4], Gottingen [1794], Pyrmont [Oct 1794-Jan 1795], Wolfenbuttel [1795], Brunswick [1795-6], Koenigslutter [1796-8], Hamburg, Altona [summer 1799], Molln, near Hamburg [Sept 1800-1801], Machern & Eilenberg, nr Leipzig [1801], Dessau [1802-4], Torgau [June 1805 to summer 1811]

It is also complicated by the fact that in 1792-3, for almost a whole year, he was resident in Georgenthal treating the insane patient, Herr Klockenbring. All such factors reduce the time he could have devoted solely to provings to something like 12 or 13 years and means he either proved several drugs back-to-back or he managed to prove several simultaneously using different groups of people. Furthermore, the remedies in the Fragmenta do contain a few surprises and it is very informative for us to scour the 1790 decade for other hints of what remedies he was scrutinisng at what point. For example, Bradford mentions [p.57] that Hahnemann was using Hepar sulphuris c.1794.

In 1796, in his “Essay on a New Principle,” Hahnemann mentions the following 46 remedies, of which 19 [41.3%] later appear in the Fragmenta as fully proven drugs: Nux vomica [p.318 p.278] Mercury [287], Chamomilla [267], Achillea [269], Valeriana [269], Viscum [269], Conium [270], Aethusa [271], Cicuta [271], Cocculus [271], Paris [271], Coffee [271], Dulcamara [272], Belladonna [273], Hyoscyamus [275], Stramonium [276], Tabaccum [277], Ignatia [279], Digitalis [279], Viola [281], Ipecac [281], Arbutus [282], Rhododendron [282], Ledum [282], Opium [283], Plumbum [287], Arsenic [291], Taxus [290], Aconite [291], Helleborus [292], Anemone [293], Geum [293], Drosera [294], Sambucus, [295], Rhus [295], Camphor [295], Ulmus [298], Cannabis [298], Crocus [298], Scilla [299], Veratrum alb [303], Sabadilla [302], Agaricus [303], Nux moschata [303], Rheum [Rhubarb] [303]

That Valeriana, Hyoscyamus, Stramonium, Ignatia, Mercury and Belladonna, were among the first drugs proved in the 1790s, might arouse curiosity and raise a few eyebrows. It somehow implies that Hahnemann regarded such predominantly ‘mental’ drugs, and perhaps mental symptoms in general, as highly important aspects of health and sickness in general. The degree to which this might also derive in part from his treatment of Klockenbring in 1792-3 seems also to be an interesting point to raise. After the Cinchona proving of 1790 he spent some time treating an insane man in 1792-3 but no mention is made of remedies…then in 1795 he mentions remedies like Ignatia and Hyoscyamus which MIGHT have been needed for his insane case…it is thus tempting to presume some undisclosed connection between that insane case of 1792-3 and his apparent use of remedies like Hyos and Stramonium and Ignatia with such very strong mental profiles. It also seems to suggest “entirely changed points of view,” [Whitman, lines 8-9] with him coming to regard mental symptoms as very valuable in all remedies around this time. It implies that he was widening his concept of the nature of sickness beyond a small compass of physical symptoms, which was at that time the standard allopathic conception in which he had been trained. It is difficult to discern exactly when he abandoned specific allopathic concepts and then placed his adherence solely upon specifically homeopathic ones. All these conceptual changes arguably derive from the provings.

The drugs in this list are ones he was using, ones he had read about and had an interest in, and some that he was proving or had proved. These were all drugs that stood out as significant to him; they were clearly all on his ‘shopping list’ for deeper investigation. It is clear that he was focused at this time on 40-50 drugs which he believed, when used singly, acted by similars and which he could add to his growing materia medica.

In 1798, the remedies mentioned in the essay “Antidotes to Some Heroic Vegetable Substances,” [Lesser Writings, pp.322-29] are as follows: Camphor, Mezereum, Coffea, Ignatia, Verat alb, Gamboja, Ant tart, Stramonium, Cocculus ind, Arnica, Opium, Cantharis, Scilla = 13 remedies of which 9 [69%] appear also fully proved in the Fragmenta of 1805.

The Fragmenta

The 27 drugs proved in the Fragmenta are as follows [Haehl, vol 2, p.82]:[followed by number of symptoms obtained by Hahnemann and those by others]

Aconitum napellus 138 75 [h got 65% of sx]
acris tinctura (Causticum) 30 0 [he got 100% of sx]
arnica montana 117 33 [he got 78% of sx]
belladonna 101 304 [he got 25% of sx]
camphora 73 74 [he got 50% of sx]
cantharis 20 74 [not listed by Bradford, p.80] [he got 21.3% of sx]
capsicum annuum 174 3 [he got 98% of sx]
chamomilla 272 3 [he got 99% of sx]
cinchona 122 99 [he got 55% of sx]
cocculus 156 6 [he got 96.3% of sx]
copaifera balsamum 12 8 [he got 60% of sx]
cuprum vitriolatum 29 38 [he got 43.3% of sx]
digitalis 23 33 [he got 41% of sx]
drosera 36 4 [he got 90% of sx]
hyoscyamus 45 290 [he got 13.4% of sx] [104 478 according to Seror]
ignatia 157 19 [he got 89.2% of sx]
ipecac 70 13 [he got 84.3% of sx]
ledum 75 5 [he got 93.8% of sx]
Helleborus 32 25 [he got 56% of sx]
mezereum 6 34 [he got 15% of sx]
nux vomica 257 51 [he got 83.4% of sx]
Papaver somniferum) opium 82 192 [he got 47% of sx]
pulsatilla 280 29 [he got 90.6% of sx]
rheum 39 13 [he got 75% of sx]
stramonium 59 157 [he got 51% of sx]
valeriana 25 10 [he got 71.4% of sx]
veratrum album 161 106 [he got 60.3% of sx]

As we can see, the number of symptoms which Hahnemann recorded for each drug ranges from 12 for Copaifera to 280 for Puls. Perhaps as an insight into his personality, or constitutional type, Hahnemann himself obtained the maximum number of symptoms from Chamomilla, Pulsatilla and Nux vomica; and the least number from Cantharis, Copaifera, Digitalis and Valeriana.

The Materia Medica Pura

This work was published 1811-31, and contains the following 65 fully proven drugs:

Aconitum napellus, Ambra grisea, Angustura, Argentum, Arnica, Arsenicum, Asarum, Aurum, Belladonna, Bismuthum, Bryonia, Calcarea acetica, Camphora, Cannabis sativa, Capsicum annuum, Carbo animalis, Carbo vegetabilis, Chamomilla, Chelidonium, China, Cicuta virosa, Cina, Cocculus, Colocynthis, Conium, Cyclamen europaeum, Digitalis, Drosera rotundifolia, Dulcamara, Euphrasia officinalis, Ferrum, Guaiacum, Helleborus niger, Hepar sulphuris calcareum, Hyoscyamus, Ignatia, Ledum, Magnes, Magnetis polus arcticus, Magnetis polus australis, Menyanthes trifoliate, Mercurius, Moschus, Muriaticum acidum, Nux vomica, Oleander, Opium, Phosphoricum acidum, Pulsatilla, Rheum, Rhus, Ruta, Sambucus, Sarsaparilla, Scilla, Spigelia, Spongia, Stannum, Staphisagria, Stramonium, Sulphur, Taraxacum, Thuja, Veratrum album, Verbascum

The Chronic Diseases

Contents of the Chronic Diseases [1829]

Agaricus, Alumina, ammon carb, ammon mur, anacard, ant crud, arsenic, aurum, Aur mur, Bar c, borax, Calc carb, Carb-an, carb-v, caustic, clem, coloc, conium, cuprum, digitalis, dulc, euphorb, graph, guiacum, Hepar sulph, Iodium, kali-c, lyc, mag-c, mag-m, manganum, mez, muriat ac, Natr carb, Natr mur, nitr ac, nitrum, Petroleum, Phosphorus, phos ac, Platina, sars, sepia, silicea, stannum, sulph, sul-ac, zincum [48 drugs]

A comparison of the remedies listed in the Fragmenta, the Materia Medica Pura and the Chronic Diseases is most informative and “throws a totally different light on,” [Berger] some interesting questions about Hahnemann’s methods and why certain remedies seem to ‘come in and then go out’ of favour. This is a very interesting study and presumably throws to light aspects of his changing views as the provings progressed. My own tentative view of this is that though he was initially excited by every new proving, as time wore on he sometimes saw few applications, or few successful applications, of some drugs in cases of sickness.

In this sense, his initial excitement for a freshly proven drug must have given way to a sense of disappointment about, say, its limited therapeutic application. In such an eventuality he was forced to downgrade such remedies as ‘lesser’ while retaining his enthusiasm for those ‘higher’ remedies, which tended to match many disease states and which had thus shown an ability to produce some successful cures. This seems be the best explanation of why remedies do appear to come and go across the visor of homeopathy as it evolved. I hold this view primarily because he was above all else an empirical and pragmatic man and nothing seemed to have impressed him more than results. He wished for a medicine “without the superfluous rubbish of hypotheses.” [Gumpert, 26] Everything “that savoured of theory was swept dramatically out of his mind. In his opinion there was only one criterion: success.” [Gumpert, 24] It also reveals the basic nature of the materia medica as it exists today with some 50 or 100 remedies doing most of the work and dozens of others that are very rarely used. That the materia medica is like this would simply seem to be an “inexorable law of nature.” [Harding, 20]

Another issue concerns the provings he published. For example, why does Hahnemann fail to include the Fragmenta drugs in the Materia Medica Pura or the Chronic Diseases? It seems strange that he does not aggregate these separate publications as he goes along into a growing and expanding work showing all provings in one volume: a growing homeopathic materia medica. He even updated the MMP and CD as separate works as time went on and failed to add some of the drugs in the Fragmenta. This would seem to reflect a mysterious and undisclosed attitude on Hahnemann’s part in relation to the provings. Why leave drugs out of later works that were fully proved in earlier publications? It does not seem to make any sense.

The following analysis of the drugs he proved yields many interesting facets of this subject.

1. Remedies mentioned in 1796-8 and then appearing in the Fragmenta are:
acon, bell, canth, camph, cocc, dig, dros, hell, hyos, ign, ledum, mez, nux-v, opium, rheum, stram, val, veratr
= 19/27 = 70.4% match between previous mention and proving in Fragmenta

2. Remedies mentioned in 1796-8 and appearing in MMP
acon, arn, bell, cann, camph, canth, cham, cicuta, cocc, con, dig, dros, dulc, hell, hyos, ign, ledum, merc, nux v, opium, rheum, sambuc, scilla, stram, taxus, val, veratr
= 27/65 = 41.54% match between previous mention and proving in MMP

3. Remedies mentioned in 1796-8 and appearing in CD
Dig, dulc, agar, arsen, con, hepar, mez
= 7/48 = 14.6% match between previous mention and proving in CD

4. Remedies mentioned 1790s but never proved by Hahnemann:
achillea, aethusa, anemone, arbutus, crocus, gamboja, geum, paris, plumbum, rhodo, sabadilla, tabacum, taxus, ulmus, viola, viscum
= 16/51 = 31.4% mentioned 1790s but never proved later

5. Remedies in Fragmenta never previously mentioned
caust, copaifera, cupr, puls
= 4/27 = 14.8% no previous mention and proving in Fragmenta

6. Remedies in MMP; never previously mentioned
ambra, argent, angustura, asaraum, aurum, bism, bry, calc-ac, carb an, carb veg, chel, cina, coloc, cycl, euphras, ferrum, guiac, magnetis arct, magnetis austr, manganum, mur ac, oleandr, phos ac, puls, ruta, sarsap, spig, spong, stann, staph, sul, thuja, verbasc
= 35/65 = 53.85% of MMP Remedies never previously mentioned

7. Remedies common to Fragmenta and MMP
acon, arn, bell, camph, cham, china, coccul, copaifera, dig, dros, hell, hyos, ign, ipecac, ledum, nux v, opium, puls, rheum, stram, val
= 22/65 = 33.85% overlap between Fragmenta and MMP

8. Remedies in CD also in MMP
aur, carb an, carb v, coloc, con, dig, dulc, guiac, hep, manganum, mur ac, phos ac, sars, stram, sulph

= 15/48 = 31.25% overlap between MMP and CD

9. Remedies in Fragmenta and CD
caust, cupr, dig, mez
4/48 = 8.3% overlap Fragmenta to CD

10. Remedies with no previous mention but in CD
agar, alumina, ammon carb, ammon mur, anac, aur-m, bar-c, borax, calc-c, clematis, coloc, euphorb, graph, iod, kali-c, lyc, mag-c, mag-m, nat-c, nat-m, nit ac, nitrum, petr, phos, platin, sep, sil, sul-ac, zinc
= 29/48 = 60.42% CD Rx totally new and previously unmentioned

Case of the week. Feb 1st 2015

Just received 30 mins ago.

EdReed_crop_exact_crop_exactI am being kept awake by an aching pain in the left hip joint. It feels like the head of the femur. It extends down the femur to the outside of the knee and the tendon behind the knee. I can’t find a comfortable position, best lying on the back. I change position and it seems a bit better for a few moments then its back. It feels like I strained the hip but I haven’t that I know of. We went out out to dinner with friends, just sat around eating, talking. On the way home almost hit a car that cut in front of us and stopped dead. Maybe I tensed up and strained it? Went to bed at 9pm woke up at midnight with this thing. Pain is a 4 (0-10). Enough that I can’t get to sleep. Constant ache. I took a shower in the late afternoon which I don’t normally do. I always finish hot shower with cold for a few seconds. Went up to get mail with slightly wet hair. I didn’t feel like I got chilled. Not sure of the cause.

(Case notes: Patient USENPASCA5476 Feb/1/2015 acute)

These are everyday events in the life of people. A pain suddenly appears and there may be plenty of ‘causations’ to choose from, and we as physicians have to sort it out.

I have always found it best to look at the case before us ignore what is “not sure”and concentrate on the symptoms that are absolute.

In looking at this case as I received it, I was pretty sure what the remedy to start would be without the use of the repertory. There are certain aspects of medicines that I have learned over the years that when seen in a patient, regardless of the named disease, are representative of the expression of how the ailments are seen in the patient, and also representative of symptoms that are caused by a substance and therefore in the provings.

  • I am being kept awake by an aching pain in the left hip joint.I can’t find a comfortable position,
  • best lying on the back.
  • I change position and it seems a bit better for a few moments then its back.

The above symptoms represent the expression of the disease in its whole extent. It does not mean that this is the final remedy the patient will receive but it does mean that the remedy that has the symptoms is the remedy that will start the process and perhaps will cure it in its entirety but in any event, is the only remedy that covers the initial symptoms of the disorder.

The remedy that was chosen was given in the 200 C  because the patient has an affinity in acute’s for this particular potency. It is interesting to note as an aside, Boenninghausen’s potency of choice was 200 C.

The remedy that was selected for this case, is not one that commonly comes to mind in any school that teaches homoeopathic first-aid as part of its curriculum. This tells me that the emphasis on Kentian philosophy and teachings, along with its offshoots of the sensation method et al, is as far removed from Hahnemannian prescribing as can be. For a practitioner to be of benefit to his patients, we cannot recommend highly enough the return to studying the Organon and its directions for case taking as being the single most important undertaking that any practitioner can do. In needs to be read as is written without any additional overlay or interpretation as given by Kent, as to what the paragraphs or aphorisms actually mean. In needs to be read with the removal of any spiritual inference in the words. Hahnemann was a scientist and a doctor who said exactly what he meant.

So in looking at this case, firstly I need to state that this was received in an email. As long as symptoms are clearly stated, there is no need to go into the whole mental state of the patient unless the mental state has altered significantly in the course of the illness.

The seat of this case was the hip. It was an aching pain, at its best when laying on the back, best from changing position which ameliorated but only for a short time. This is the entire case.

Members of the IHM choose to use the P and W version of the therapeutic pocketbook to analyse all cases. The symptoms were inputted into the repertory to see if my thoughts on the remedy could be justified by a repertorial analysis.

hip1

As you can see, I used the Hahnemannian directions for the location, the sensation and the modalities which characterised the entire expression of the disease. I did not surmise or spend time on the causation simply because it was not clear. I do know however, the results of whatever it was that caused this problem. With the clear modalities affecting the hip I was able to prescribe a medicine for the disorder.

Click on image for full size.
hip

For the practitioner this is an invaluable lesson to get to know the medicines of the materia Medica in the proper way rather than as personalities or mental symptoms only. The materia Medica is a collection of symptoms without interpretation that are caused by substances in both material doses and dilutions.

I received this email 30 minutes after the patient took the dose:

Took the remedy a few minutes ago. Feels like its relaxing a bit. I’ll try going to sleep and see what happens. Thanks!

We will follow this up later and see if we need to repeat the medicine or change it, or if indeed the whole problem is resolved.

The Mustard Gas Experiments of 1941-1942

             One of the first double-blind and placebo-controlled trials ever conducted for a governmental agency (England’s Ministry of Home Security) tested homeopathic treatments during World War II and was conducted in 1941-42 on volunteers whose skin was burned with mustard gas.  The Glasgow trial included 40 volunteers, and the London trial included 240 volunteers. A more recent analysis of the data further substantiated the statistical significance of this study (Owen and Ives, 1982), and even more recently, it was described in detail in the famed Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine (Dean, 2014).

In the Glasgow experiments, only Mustard Gas 30C was used, given moments before getting exposed to mustard gas.  The first experiment found that none of the first 12 patients receiving homeopathic treatment experienced deep lesions after exposure to mustard gas, while all (!) of those volunteers who received a placebo experienced deep lesions.  Of the next 28 volunteers who received the homeopathic medicine, 12 had superficial wounds and two had deep lesions after the homeopathic treatment.  In comparison, those volunteers who were given a placebo, two experienced superficial lesions and 12 had deep lesions.

In London, two experiments were conducted.  The first experiment included 139 volunteers who were assigned to take one of several homeopathic medicines known to treat burns, including Rhus tox, Kali bich, Opium, Cantharis, and Mustard Gas (all in 30C).  A second experiment was conducted with 101 volunteers, in which they were either given a placebo or a specific protocol of Variolinum 30C and Rhus tox 30C, taken after exposure, as well as Mustard Gas 30C and Rhus tox 30C given 14 days before exposure.

The results of the London experiments were sent for “independent analysis.  A report determined that “there is certainly an indication of beneficial effects of the drugs in general.”

A recent review of this study acknowledged that despite the remarkable results at two locations, the Ministry of Home Security still rejected the results on the grounds that the experimental technique must have been flawed, despite the fact that the Ministry helped in the design of the trial that included the use of placebo controls, blind outcome assessment, and independent statistical testing.  The Ministry of Home Security never provided any evidence that these studies were flawed, but considering the positive outcome of the studies, they simply assumed that something was wrong with them.

Dean, Michael Emmans. The Mustard Gas Experiments Done by the British Homoeopathic Society for the Ministry of Home Security, 1941-1942. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2014 107(11)453-455.  DOI: 10.1177/0141076814521937.

Paterson, J. Report on Mustard Gas Experiments,  Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy, 1944, 37:47-50, 88-92.

Owen, RMM, and Ives, G.  The Mustard Gas Experiments of the British Homeopathic Society: 1941-1942,  Proceedings of the 35th International Homeopathic Congress, 1982,

 

Phosphoric Acid

head pain

by Vera Resnick

What headache is your patient dealing with? What makes it better, and what makes it worse? Does it extend, and if so – where to? Here’s Phosphoric Acid’s headache from Hahnemann’s proving in Chronic Diseases. Bold italics are mine.
Look through the symptoms and you will see the strong aggravation modalities – in particular different kinds of motion, whether turning the head, bending the head forward, the slightest motion, or treading firmly and walking. This is also a headache that doesn’t stay in one place. It extends into the brain, into the eye, into the forehead. Pressure can aggravate – but it can also ameliorate. Pressure is mentioned around 29 times in these symptoms – that’s 29 times in around 67 symptoms, i.e. a lot. Even this brief breakdown of modalities already gives a partial picture of Phosphoric Acid which we can use in differentiation between this remedy and others.

  1. Headache, at once early in the morning on awaking ; it goes off on rising.
  2. Headache, in the forehead, when quickly turning the head and when treading firmly.
  3. Headache, in the occiput, obliging one to lie down.
  4. Severe headache, causing one to lie down, with stiffness of the nape.
  5. Constant headache. [Hrm.].
  6. Headache, excessively increased by the slightest concussion or by noise. [Hrm.].
  7. Severe headache above the eyes, so that she could not open them.
  8. Headache, as after straining in lifting, sensation of heaviness in the head.
  9. Heaviness of the head. [Gtm.].
  10. Great heaviness of the whole of the head, with violent pressure, drawing toward the left frontal eminence. [Htm.].
  11. Heaviness and pressure forward in the occiput on inclining the head forward ; it goes off by inclining it backward. [Htm.].
  12. Dull headache in the forehead and the temples, with considerable cheerfulness. [Frz.].
  13. Dull, crawling headaches in the sinciput, with perspiration on the forehead. [Fr. H.].
  14. Stupid headache, when he comes into the warm room in the evening.
  15. Stupid headache with humming in the head; then while coughing pain as if the head would burst.
  16. Pressive pain in the right occiput, partly also extending forward, all day, aggravated by pressure and by turning the head (aft. I h.). [Gtm.].
  17. Pressure in the brain, behind the left ear. [Gtm.].
  18. Painful pressure in the right side of the occiput, outward (aft. 1 1/2 h.). [Htm.].
  19. Intermitting dull, shooting pressure, deep in the left side of the crown. [Gr.].
  20. Pressive dull pain above the orbits, with shooting behind the ears, in the afternoon. [Tth.].
  21. Severe pressure on the left side of the forehead. [Hrm.].
  22. Violent pressure outward in the right frontal eminence. [Htm.].
  23. Pressure in the forehead, as after a spree. [Mr.].
  24. Severe pressure above the left temple, extending into the occiput, with aversion to moving. [Mr.].
  25. Pressure in the head, especially while going up stairs.
  26. Severe pressure, almost like bruised pain, in the forehead or in the temple, seemingly on the surface of the brain, on reflecting especially in the evening, not however preventing thought.
  27. Violent, excessively severe pressive pain, as if in the surface of the brain and in the periosteum of that part of the skull on which he is then lying, after midnight on awaking ; aggravated so as to become unbearable, by remaining lying on the same side, and when he turns to another side, it begins there with the same fury, while ceasing in the former spot.
  28. Severe pressure, extending from the forehead down toward the nose.
  29. Pressure in the head, as from a load, from above downward, or as if the head was shattered at the top.
  30. Severe pressure in the forehead, in the morning on awaking, so that she was quite stupefied and could not open her eyes ; the pain hardly allowed her to speak, and was aggravated by the slightest motion.
  31. Excessively severe pressure in the head, in the afternoon.
  32. Headache, as if the brain was being pressed upward, with painfully pulsating throbbing therein
  33. Pressive and shooting pain in all parts of the head, in paroxysms.
  34. Severe pressure in the right temple outward. [Htm.].
  35. Squeezing pressure in the parietal bones, more violent on moving. [Hrm.].
  36. Pressure in the occiput, as if it was lying on something hard. [Mr.].
  37. Squeezing, dull, severe pressure in the left temple, in rhythmical intervals. [Gr.].
  38. Squeezing pressure and tearing in the brain, now here, now there. [Hrm.].
  39. Squeezing tearing pressure in the occiput, aggravated by noise and by the slightest motion. [Hrm.].
  40. Squeezing pressure in the right temple. [Gr.].
  41. Squeezing pressure in and on the right temple, more violent when moving. [Hrm.].
  42. Pain in the whole brain, as if it was squeezed together. [Gtm.].
  43. Pain as if both the temporal bones were being pressed together with a pair of tongs. [Gr.].
  44. Pain in the evening, in bed, as if both the temples were being constricted in various parts. [Frz.].
  45. Violent forcing and pressure out at the crown, for three days.
  46. Twitches through the head, from behind forward, in rhythmical intervals, like pulsations. [Wsl.].
  47. Twitches in the head.
  48. Drawing pressure in the right crown and in the occipital bone, more violent on moving. [Hrm.].
  49. Drawing in the left temple and in the anterior cartilage of the ear, on moving ; it turns into pressure. [Hrm.].
  50. Tearing in the crown and the occiput. [Hrm.].
  51. Tearing in the left temple, extending into the forehead, worse when moving. [Hrm.].
  52. Shooting above the left eye, upward in the head.
  53. Dull shooting, out at the middle of the forehead. [Gtm.].
  54. A dull stitch darts, as from an arrow, into the right temple, extending deep into the brain, in repeated paroxysms. [Gr.].
  55. Violent shooting in the right temple, extending into the eye. [Mr.].
  56. Severe shooting in the right temple. [Htm.].
  57. Shooting with drawing in the crown, diminished by pressure. [Wsl.].
  58. Single sharp thrusts in the right temple. [Htm.].
  59. Single blows in the head, as from a hammer.
  60. Hacking in the head, as with a hatchet (Staphis. cured this.). [Hg.].
  61. Pricking headache, early on rising, till noon.
  62. Burning headache in the upper part of the brain.
  63. Burrowing boring in the right side of the occiput. [Gtm.].
  64. Boring with pressure in the left temple. [Frz.].
  65. Boring in the head, as if holes were being bored into the skull, especially in the vertex. [Fr. H.].
  66. Painful concussion in the head, while walking.
  67. Buzzing in the head.

A health issue at the Seville Seminar

It happened to me. After a lot of flights and walking in new shoes, I experienced first a slight pain in the joint of my left big toe. The night before the Seminar began, it exploded in pain and burning and sharpness. I had no remedies with me.

I did not sleep that night. At the seminar I quickly repertorised it and then went to the Iberhome display desk and asked for Mercurius. They had a vial of 9c of which I put one globule in water, stirred, waited a couple of minutes and then took a teaspoonful. Within minutes, the pain began to subside. I repeated the dose at lunchtime. during the Semiinar, I took  maybe 4 doses. The improvement was 80%

Monday evening, all of a sudden, the foot swelled a little, tight skin, red, shiny and the pain returned to a much lesser degree, but was there. I was meeting Antonio Ortega (The dr who translated for me) and his wife for dinner that evening and requested he bring me Belladonna and which I took immediately on receiving it. I awoke this morning with no swelling, slight soreness in the joint and feeling much better. I have another dose to repeat if required.

Is it gout? I dont know. I do know that the symptoms experienced could have been gout or an inflammation  of the joint by new shoe compression. Either way, the symptoms were met by the two remedies involved.

Iberhome medicines are prepared under strict manufacturing conditions. When I visited several months ago,  I was impressed with the protocols in place for medicine preparations. They are a licenced laboratory and as such prepare a medicine from scratch in isolation rooms with air flow control and sealed containment entry and exits.

Both medicines I took acted immediately on my condition. We only have two things to rely on for a curative action, one is the accuracy of the prescription and the other is the quality of the medicines.

Iberhome certainly took care of one of the necessities.

 

A look at Iodum by Allen

A Primer of Materia Medica
for practitioners of Homœopathy
by Timothy Field Allen
Presented by Médi-T.

IODUM

General effects :
Acute catarrh of all mucous membranes, especially of the eyes and nose.
Salivation.
Enlargement of lymphatic glands, followed by atrophy, especially of testicles and mammæ, and general emaciation.
Polyuria, nephritis and albuminuria.

Generalities :
Emaciation.
Restlessness.
Trembling of the limbs.
Muscular twitchings.
Œdematous swellings.
Weakness so great that one can hardly speak.
Great excitement of the whole nervous system.
Violent pains ; worse at night.

Clinical :
Chronic cases, not febrile, generally characterized by great appetite and rapid emaciation.
Acute cases, with high fever.
Localized inflammations very frequently require Iod., which seems to be adapted to febrile conditions accompanying parenchymatous inflammations of the various organs and tissues.
These patients are usually very thirsty, but not of necessity restless ; certainly not anxious like Aconite.

Mind :
General despondency.
Irritability, with sadness.

Head :
A feeling of rush of blood, with throbbing.
Pain as if a tight band were about the head.
Headache ; < warmth, noise and talking.

Eyes :
Inflammation, especially from taking cold ; swelling of the lids.
Obscured vision.

Clinical :
Valuable for intra ocular inflammations, especially of the iris and choroid.

Ears :
Deafness (due to adhesions in the middle ear, or associated with chronic catarrh. Sensitiveness to noise).

Nose :
Sneezing, with acute, fluent coryza, which sometimes becomes stopped towards evening ; sudden, violent lachrymation, pain in the eyes, and a feeling as if the larynx were constricted.

Clinical :
In acute influenzas, with hot watery discharge, pain at the root of the nose and over frontal sinuses, with general fever.

Face :
Pale, sometimes yellowish or greenish, with blue lips (in chronic cases).
Twitching of the facial muscles.
Swollen submaxillary glands.

Mouth :
Teeth yellow and covered with mucus in the morning.
Gums loosened from the teeth and bleeding easily.
Ulcers in the mouth, of a foul odor.
Salivation.
Tongue thickly coated.

Throat :
Inflamed, with burning pain.
Constriction, with general swallowing.

Clinical :
Catarrh of the Eustachian tube, with deafness, sometimes with hoarse cough.
Ulceration, with swollen glands.
Enlargement of the thyroid gland.
(External application of Iodum to be absolutely forbidden as extremely hazardous.)

Stomach :
Ravenous hunger.
Great thirst.
Heartburn.
Nausea, even vomiting, < after eating.
Vomiting of bile, with violent pains in the stomach.
Pressure in the stomach always after eating.
Burning ; gnawing.
A peculiar internal trembling seems to spread over the region of the stomach.

Abdomen :
Pains in the region of the liver, renewed after eating ; sore to pressure.
Pain in the region of the liver, with jaundice, emaciation, etc.
Inflammation of the liver, with fever, dry tongue, restlessness etc.
Region of the spleen very painful.

Clinical :
Enlarged spleen, with salivation.
Disease of the pancreas.
Enlarged mesenteric glands, with enormous appetite, emaciation.
Enlarged liver, with jaundice, etc.

Stool :
Diarrhœa ; whitish, frothy ; sometimes with undigested fat.
Diarrhœa alternating with constipation.

Urinary organs :
Frequent, copious micturition.
Urine yellowish-green ; or with iridescent film.

Sexual organs :
Swelling and induration of the testicles.
Uterine hæmorrhage.
Menstruation usually very irregular, early or late.

Clinical :
Excoriating leucorrhœa, with atrophy of the mammary glands, goitre, etc.
Ovaritis, with leucorrhœa.
Chronic metritis.
A wedge-like pain from the right ovary to uterus.

Respiratory organs :
Pain in the larynx, with hoarseness, rawness and intolerable crawling, provoking a dry cough.
Cough croupy, with difficult respiration.

Clinical :
Extremely valuable in croup, with dry cough and fever, particularly indicated after Aconite ; has relieved the restless anxiety but not the fever.
Iod. controls the fever and softens the cough, and is frequently to be followed by Bromine.
In pneumonia the hepatization, dry cough and fever, without the anxiety of Acon. or the sticking pains of Bryonia, especially if the lesion be at the apex of the lungs.
Atrophy of the breasts.

Heart :
Palpitation ; < any effort.
Symptoms of inflammation of the heart or of hypertrophy.

Extremities :
Trembling and weariness in the extremities and debility.
Tearing pains in the joints.
Pains in the bones at night ; < when lying on that side.

Clinical :
Inflammation of the joints ; rheumatic, especially when complicated with inflammation of the heart.
White swelling of the knee joints.

Fever :
Heat predominates ; sometimes followed by profuse sweat at night, especially of the feet.

RANUNCULUS BULBOSUS

The following are short notes by Allen on the remedy. The highlighted text are the symptoms that we find useful in prescribing at the I.H.M.

RANUNCULUS BULBOSUS

Generalities :
Bruised feeling over the whole body.
Symptoms < evening and after eating, also by changes of temperature and alternations of warmth and cold, also touch, moving about and stretching the body.

Head :
Pain over the right eye, like a pressing asunder ; < lying down, > walking and standing.
Headache particularly < changes of temperature.
The whole head feels enlarged and distended.
Smarting and burning in the eyes and canthi, as from smoke.
Eyeballs sore on moving them.

Nose :
Nose swollen and inflamed, red.
Nostrils scabby.
Profuse discharge of tenacious mucus.
Tingling internally from the tip to the root, even extending to the right temple.

Clinical :
Attack like hay fever, smarting and burning in the eyes, stuffy nose, aggravated in evening ; particularly tingling and crawling, which the patient tries to relieve by hawking and blowing the nose.

Stomach :
Scraping burning from the palate through the throat to the stomach.
Obstruction by tough mucus in the throat and œsophagus, especially in the evening.
Increased thirst.
Nausea and eructations, < afternoon and evening.
Burning at the cardiac orifice of the stomach.
Aching and sore pain at the pit of the stomach when touched.
Gastritis from alcohol.

Abdomen :
Sore, bruised pain in the hypochondrium, and shooting pains from the liver into the right side of the chest.
Sticking in the right ribs, arresting breath, even extending to the top of the right shoulder.
Bruised pain in the region of the liver, sore to touch.
Sharp, pinching pains below umbilicus after eating.
Sensitiveness to touch.

Stool :
Diarrhœa, watery, painless, (dysentery, with pains in the lower rib-regions).

Chest :
Sharp, sticking pains, particularly in the lower right ribs, extending even to shoulder, or at times, above left nipple, all < touch and motion, with bruised pain ; cannot move the arms or body.
Locality of pain sensitive to touch.
The region of the lower ribs on both sides becomes extremely painful to touch, with sharp, sticking pains on motion or inspiration, with tightness.
Pain in the muscles of the chest as from subcutaneous ulceration, with soreness and difficult breathing.
Violent bruised pain in the region of the short ribs, with backache, lassitude and ill humor ; the pain spreads over the whole chest, with short breath, can hardly speak, < moving the arms or body or breathing.

Clinical :
Intercostal neuralgia.
Inflammation of the diaphragm.
Pneumonia and pleurisy, with the above peculiar pains, aggravated by changes of weather ; always with great soreness to touch, as if bruised.
The pains seem rather external, as if in the muscles.

Back :
Stitches in and between the scapulæ.

Extremities :
Sudden jerking or tearing pains in the forearms.
Sticking burning pains in the sciatic region ; < morning and stormy weather.

Skin :
Vesicular eruption ; blisters, often dark blue, in groups or along the course of nerves, with burning, shooting pains (herpes zoster).

Fever :
Frequent chilliness after dinner.
Chill in the evening, with heat of the face, but without general fever.

Thuja Through Allen: Hints by I.H.M. clinical observation

THUYA OCCIDENTALIS

In general, good for bad effects of vaccination.

Melancholia, with a fixed idea that he is made of a brittle substance, will not allow persons to touch him, for fear that he will be broken.

Great emotional sensitiveness, music causes weeping and trembling (Ign.).

Fixed idea of a living animal in the abdomen; of the soul separated from the body; of strange people by his side, etc.

Neuralgic headache in the occiput, extreme soreness and screaming, cannot sleep nor chew.

Violent neuralgic headache, as though a nail were driven in.

Neuralgia of the head and face from tea-drinking.

Neuralgia at night, extending from vertex over the whole head.

Ciliary neuralgia, pain extends over the face and head, with great soreness, cannot lie on the face nor chew.

Keratoiritis, with excessive photophobia, opacity, etc.

Episcleritis, with great soreness and violent pain.

Iritis, especially syphilitic, with gummata on the iris, severe nocturnal pain.

Polypi of the ear, with otorrhoea, easy bleeding, shooting pains.

Otorrhoea smelling of putrid meat.

Nasal catarrh, with quantities of thick, green mucus, pus and blood that seem to come from the frontal sinuses.

Painful scabs in the nostrils.

Warts on the nose.

Violent toothache from decayed teeth, particularly useful when the teeth decay next the gums, with retraction of the gums, leaving a healthy crown; teeth extremely sensitive to cold water.

Aphthous sore mouth.

Warts about anus.

Fistula.

Piles.

Excessive perspiration on perineum.

Chronic diarrhoea.

Stools forcible, pale, copious, greasy, expelled with gurgling, like water from a bung-hole, < after breakfast; particularly diarrhoea after vaccination.

Dysuria.

High-colored, strong smelling urine.

Gonorrhoea, with thin, greenish discharge and scalding during micturition.

Repressed gonorrhoea, especially with rheumatism or inflamed prostate.

Secondary syphilis; roseola, iritis, with condylomata, etc.

Chancroidal ulcers on the genitals.

Epithelioma of the vagina and uterus.

Uterine polypi, with terrible pain.

Ovaritis, l.

Chronic ovaritis following gonorrhoea.

Prolapsus, < driving, with great pain in the back.

Condylomata.

Vagina extremely sensitive in coition (Kreos., Sulph.).

Polypi of the vocal cords.

Cough in the morning after rising and during the day, sometimes in evening after lying down; immediately after eating.

Sciatica of l. side from fright.

Toe-nails crumble, are very brittle.

Fungoid excrescences from various parts of the body, which bleed easily on the slightest touch.

Molluscum, tubercular, umbilicated.

Numerous crops of warts, and condylomata, which bleed readily.

Lupus.

Varicose ulcers.

Pemphigus, eczema.

It was used by Boenninghausen in variola as soon as the vesicles filled; he believed it caused rapid desiccation and prevented scars.

Extremely fetid sweat on feet.