By David Little.
LBoth quantity and quality are important in dosing. Hahnemann’s most refined dosing methods are based on this principle. Why did Hahnemann abandon the administration of basic potentisations in drops in favour of small sugar granules on which he dried the potentisation? Precisely because he had determined that administering the medicine in the form of drops represented a dose was too high and was causing unnecessary complications as well as pathogenic symptoms.
He then began to use size 10 granules, but after a while he reduced the dose to just one granule in at least 120 ml of water. And even then, the dose was carefully adjusted in accordance with the sensitivity of the patient’s constitution. This is by no means an imitation of the allopathic concept of weight-based doses. Hahnemann’s method of dosing remedies is the most refined in the art of healing. As he increased the degree of potentisation, Hahnemann reduced the quantity administered. This requires careful consideration.
It is a widely held belief in modern homeopathy that there is no difference in the action of a homeopathic remedy, whether one, a hundred, a thousand or an infinite number of granules are administered. Kent was the originator of this idea, which can be found in his Lectures on Homeopathic Philosophy (trans. Schmidt, *The Science and Art of Homeopathy*), in the chapter devoted to the elemental substance (simple substance). This concept dates from the 18th century, a time when it was believed that all forms of energy were based on a subtle substance. This view was influenced by Newton’s theory, according to which there are permanent atoms responsible for all forms of energy.
Hahnemann was one of the first visionaries to suggest that forms of pure energy might exist without any material medium or subtle substance. ‘In a state of good health, the vital force animates the material part of the body’ (Organon, §9). Kent objected to Hahnemann’s use of terms such as ‘vital force’, ‘vital energy’ or ‘vital principle’ because his conception of energy was based on elemental substance. As he did not envisage the existence of pure energy, Kent found what Hahnemann wrote here to be dubious. (See Lectures).
"If he (Hahnemann) had used the words intangible vital substance, it would have been even more profound, because you’ll see that it really is a substance ‘.
Kent could not conceive of purely energetic phenomena because he believed that any force must be based on a subtle state of matter. Hahnemann equated the dynamic nature of the vital force with natural phenomena of an electromagnetic nature rather than with an elementary substance. He was a pure vitalist who taught that the material world is sustained by sources of radiant energy, not by subtle forms of matter or permanent atoms. For Kent, however, such a view was impossible, as he believed that everything had a material basis.
“For many years there has been debate about the concept of force as force, or as a creative power. The idea that nothing pre-exists force drives the human mind to madness. If we regard energy as something material, we might as well believe that a substance can possess energy.”
Kent believed that a ‘fourth state’ of matter was the precursor to all forms of energy or force. He could not conceive of matter as a condensed form of energy, as he could not imagine that a force could arise from ‘nothing’. The idea of permanent atoms dates back to Democritus and persisted until Einstein paved the way for quantum physics in the early 20th century. Kent believed that the process of potentisation reduced the homeopathic remedy to its elementary substance, so that the remedy itself entered the fourth state of matter.
Swedenborg taught that in the fourth state of matter there is no ‘quantity’ of elementary substance, but only ‘quality in degrees of fineness’. This is why Kent taught that there is no difference in the effect of a high potentisation, whether one or a thousand granules are administered. Kent believed that the degrees of fineness of the elementary substance represented the potency of the potentisation. Furthermore, as the elementary substance has no ‘quantity’, the number of granules administered was irrelevant. This is why so many modern homeopaths confuse the concept of the minimum dose with the idea of a high potency.
Modern physics states that all forms of energy are contained in small packets of energy called quanta (plural of quantum. Translator’s note). The magnitude of a force increases with the number of quanta at a given wavelength. In the same vein, Hahnemann taught that each homeopathic remedy granule possessed a certain quantity or ‘quantum’ of medicinal energy. In a sense, the potentisation of the remedy represents the waveform or frequency of the energy, and the number of granules represents the amplitude or potency of the signal. This is why the potency of a homeopathic dose increases each time the practitioner administers more granules.
Many modern homeopaths interpret the size of the dose as being synonymous with the level 
of potentisation used, mistakenly believing that the use of the minimum dose is related to the minute quantity of the original substance present in the high potency. This is not the case, as Hahnemann discusses the distinction between the quantity of the dose and the factor of potentisation in his works. In the Organon, he writes that an excessive quantity of a well-chosen remedy is dangerous, especially if it is administered in a high potency (§ 275).
“A remedy, even one that is homeopathically appropriate, is harmful when the dose administered is too large in volume, and even more so if it is repeated too frequently.” (§ 276)
Hahnemann taught that the phenomenon of aggravation is related not only to potentisation but also to the number of granules administered. It is thus evident that Hahnemann’s views on energetic mechanisms bear a close resemblance to those of 20th-century quantum physics, which transcends the ideas of both Newton and Swedenborg. In homeopathy, the minimal dose is a very important principle that serves as a guide in daily practice.
A child who ingests a large number of granules of a remedy that is unsuitable for them is in no danger. On the other hand, pathogenetic symptoms have sometimes been observed under the same circumstances. There is a real danger when the remedy is strictly homeopathic and the patient is sensitive, or has an advanced chronic illness or latent pathological changes. This is by no means a theoretical issue for those who have worked with medicinal solutions and dose-adjustment methods. Hahnemann describes his own experience of administering a too much granulate in Chronic Diseases.
“I myself have experienced this mishap, which greatly hinders recovery and which one cannot avoid enough. Unaware at the time of the potency of medicinal energy, I used to administer Sepia in excessively large quantities. This was even more evident when I administered four to six globules of Lycopodium or Silicea, potentised to one-millionth degree, barely the size of poppy seeds. »
After that, Hahnemann reduced the dose to one or, at most, two granules in the 4thth the edition of the *Organon* (1829) and subsequently to the medicinal solution obtained by dissolving a single granule in the 5th (1833) and 6th edition. Although Kent believed that it made no difference whether one or a thousand granules were administered, or one or a hundred spoonfuls of solution, the methods introduced by Hahnemann in the 1837 edition of *Chronic Diseases* and the 6thth The editions of the *Organon* show that this view is incorrect. I have been putting these ideas to the test for 12 years and now have hundreds of cases which prove that Hahnemann is right and Kent is wrong. Here are just a few examples.
1.A hypersensitive young woman experienced a very severe worsening of her symptoms every time she took a 6CH granule, after which her condition would improve slightly only to relapse again. She thought she was too sensitive to undergo homeopathic treatment and was ready to give up. By preparing a medicinal solution of which she took just one spoonful, the remedy no longer caused any aggravation, so it was possible to repeat the treatment at appropriate intervals until she was cured. Here is an example showing how switching from a dry dose to a liquid dose (with succussion before each dose) prevents aggravation and makes the remedy suitable for repeated administration in a hypersensitive person who would otherwise have had severe reactions with each dose. This example shows that there is a difference depending on how the remedy is administered, as well as on its quantity.
2.A homeopath took Carb-v 200 as a dry dose without experiencing any reaction. Yet the remedy seemed perfectly indicated. I therefore advised him to take the remedy in solution, one spoonful at a time. A few doses of this 200 solution, shaken five times before each intake to alter the potentisation each time, cured him quickly. Here is another example where the solution works where the dry dose produces no result. If the quantity makes no difference, whether in solution or in dry form, as Kent says, then how can this be explained?
3. A woman who was taking a dose of Cimic LM1 in a 120 ml solution for migraines experienced a worsening of her symptoms. After doubling the amount of water in her solution, there was no further worsening; she was able to repeat the treatment every three days for a month and the migraines did not return. This example illustrates how to adjust the dose by using more water in the stock solution. This moderates the remedy’s effect on her constitution and allows the treatment to be repeated without any worsening of symptoms.
4.A patient suffering from sleep apnoea was taking Ars LM1 in a 200 ml solution, which was succussed three times before administration; the dose consisted of one spoonful of the mother tincture diluted and stirred into a 200 ml glass. After taking the remedy, there was a worsening of some of the accompanying symptoms for three days, followed by a slight improvement and then a relapse. Without changing the number of succussions, one spoonful of the first glass was diluted in a second glass, from which the patient took one spoonful. This brought about a radical change and caused the sleep apnoea to disappear. Using this method, there was no aggravation. This example demonstrates how diluting the remedy through two successive glasses of water yields a striking result, whereas taking the remedy diluted in just a single glass of water caused only an aggravation followed by a slight improvement. Does this not clearly demonstrate the role of quantity? According to Kent, this should not have affected the remedy’s action.
5.When I prescribed a solution to be shaken five times before taking it, a patient responded well to the first dose. When I prescribed a second dose, he forgot to shake the bottle and the remedy had no effect. After discussing this with him, I reminded him to shake the solution before taking it, and the dose worked just as well as the first time. This example shows how repeating the remedy without succussion produces no effect. When the remedy was potentised again, as Hahnemann suggests in paragraph 248, it had a very profound effect. This demonstrates the importance of succussion and of potentising each dose anew. This is a related matter, unrelated to the quantity of the dose.
In the *Organon*, Hahnemann mentions that certain conditions require an increase in the dose size in order to achieve a cure. The first example he gives concerns the primary cutaneous manifestation of a chronic miasm. Here are a few personal examples of this method.
In cases of scabies, the standard dose of one spoonful is not sufficient to eliminate the parasites. In Aphorism 248, Hahnemann advises increasing the dose of the remedy in increments of one spoonful whenever necessary. By gradually increasing the dose from one spoonful to two and then three spoonfuls, the parasites were quickly eliminated. I have done this on numerous occasions.
6.A case of ringworm responded only slowly to repeated doses of Bacillinum LM1, administered one spoonful at a time. Increasing the number of succussions made no difference. The dose was then repeated more frequently, but again to no avail. Upon increasing the dose to 3 spoonfuls, there was an immediate response and the lesion began to disappear. This larger dose proved effective where smaller ones had failed. The number of succussions remained unchanged.
Hahnemann also cites as an example of cases requiring an increase in the dose those in which the patient’s general state of health has improved but a stubborn local condition persists. I have often seen cases where a marked general improvement is achieved but where pathological or lesion-related symptoms persist. In such cases, it is best to start with the smallest dose necessary to elicit a reaction and then increase it slowly until an effect is seen on the local symptoms.
7.I remember a case where I was giving Calc LM1 to a man who was suffering from an incredible number of symptoms, including impotence, which was causing him considerable distress. He responded very well, both mentally and physically, to the first few doses, but the impotence persisted until I gradually increased the dose, one spoonful at a time, over a period of several weeks. The impotence disappeared and, according to the latest news, he remains cured.
There is another reason to increase the dose when a case appears to have stopped progressing.
8.A patient presented with an enlarged prostate, accompanied by melancholy, impotence, a weak urinary stream, and a sensation of pressure in the perineum. I initially prescribed one spoonful of Conium, which produced a marked response. He then increased the dose to two spoonfuls of his own accord and experienced a similar worsening of symptoms (dose too high). I advised him to stop taking it for a few days and then resume with one spoonful. The treatment worked very well at LM1 and LM2 potencies, with the most significant symptoms disappearing. Then it seemed that the remedy’s effect was waning, as if it had reached a plateau. I then slowly increased the dose from one spoonful to two, then three, and the patient’s condition began to improve again, so that he is now much, much better. If the size of the dose makes no difference, how can this happen?
The cases mentioned above are all examples where the methods used to adjust the dose make all the difference between the success or failure of a case. Quite simply, the diagnosis of the remedy would have been called into question had I not adjusted the dose in these cases. These methods are linked to the innovations that Samuel Hahnemann introduced in the 5thth (1833) and the 6thth (completed in 1842) in the editions of the *Organon* and in the 1837 edition of *Chronic Diseases*. These methods require greater artistic skill on the part of the doctor, but an increase in knowledge goes hand in hand with an increase in responsibility.
James T. Kent’s contribution to homeopathy has been monumental. His teachings on philosophy, the materia medica and the repertory remain fundamental for every homeopathic practitioner. For me, as a student of homeopathy, Kent is my revered teacher. Nevertheless, perfection can only be found in Almighty God; it is for this reason that the great Constantin Hering said: ‘It is the duty of us all to go even further in the theory and practice of homeopathy than Hahnemann did. We should seek the truth that lies before us and renounce our past errors.’
A student such as myself will never be able to go beyond the knowledge of Hahnemann, Hering or Kent; therefore, this paper has no other aim than to shed further light on Hahnemann’s views on the minimum dose.
– David Little
The author, David Little, has studied homeopathy for over 30 years. Born in the United States, he ran free homeopathic clinics in India for 16 years. His in-depth research into the clinical applications of Hahnemann’s methods, as described in the 5th (1833) and 6th (completed in 1842) editions of the Organon, as well as in the 1837 edition of Chronic Diseases, has led to him being unanimously regarded as one of the leading experts on the quinquagentamillesimal (LM) potencies.
