• Renal stones, Hydronephrosis, Kidney disorders, Nephropathy
• Boils and abscess
• Gall bladder inflammatory conditions, Cholecystitis, Cholelethiasis, Sludge in gallbladder, swelling of gall bladder, stone in gall bladder below 4 mm/5mm size
• piles, heamorrhoids
• Some nature of cyst and glands
• Hard glands, inflammation of mammery glands
• Tonsillitis, uvalitis, throat and vocal cord problems
• Fractures simple type, cracking bones
• Enlarged Prostate, Prostate hypertrophy
• some types of cancer or cancerous growth in mouth, cheeks, skin, uterus and othet organs
• blockage of arteries/veins, blood clotting in arteries
• any other disease conditions which requires surgery except immediate surgical intervention

Drug proving is a systematic process and arrangement to procure the disease producing power of any substance, say medicine in human say healthy human, both sexes, any and all age, body built, temperaments, constitution, etc.

The recording of the drug proving must be reliable and thats why reliable and genuine person should be selected for the drug proving. Hahnemann writes directions for conducting the drug proving in the Organon of Medicine in aphorisms 120 -145 to procure the curative properties of medicine substances for curing thousands of thousands disease conditions.

The directives are that drug should be proved on the human being because,

• Animals can not give the mental and subjective symptoms
• Effects of some drugs on animal and on human being will be different.

The Vital force in the healthy condition, maintains the normal functions and sensations of the organism. When the vital force is not dynamically deranged by the morbific dynamic influences, it is normal in this stage. When the vital force is influenced by the morbific dynamic agents, it deranges and causes abnormal sensations and functions, which are manifested outwardly through the material body as abnormal sign and symptoms, which constitute the disease syndromes.

The cure is possible when the vital force aided itself to rise the recovery. When vital force is weak, debilitated, exhausted and not provoked itself, the recovery of normal health is difficult.

Drug dynamization is the most characteristic—and controversial—principle of homeopathy is that the potency of a remedy can be enhanced (and the side-effects diminished) by dilution, in a procedure known as dynamization or potentization. Liquids are progressively diluted (with water, or alcohol) and shaken by ten hard strikes against an elastic body (succussion). For this purpose, Hahnemann had a saddlemaker construct a special wooden striking board covered in leather on one side and stuffed with horsehair. It can be viewed at the Hahnemann Museum in Stuttgart. Insoluble solids are diluted by grinding them with lactose (trituration). Higher ‘potencies’ are considered to be stronger ‘deep-acting’ remedies.

Hahnemannian concept:
Pharmaceutical preparations are prepared according to the direction of the Hahnemannian approach, as described in the Materia Medica Pura section on medicine.
Herbal preparations:
Herbs are initially chopped into small pieces and then crushed to make a fine pulp. One part of the pulp is measured by weight and mixed with four parts of absolute alcohol by weight (1:4, one to four ratio). The mixture is kept in an airtight glass bottle in a dark room at room temperature for one week (or other specially indicated time). The content is then filtered and kept in a glass bottle for medicinal uses. This is called “Mother Tincture” and the abbreviation is designated “Q”.

There are several methods of preparation of mother tincture according to whether it is from dry finely-powdered herbs, the mucilaginous part of herbs, the fresh juice of herbs, resins, gums, roots, tubers, barks, seeds, fruits, dried flowers, etc.
Method:
There are two methods of drug potentization:

• Trituration: insoluble substances are triturated by this method.
• Succussion: for potentization of soluble substances.

The Pharmaceutical preparations of Homoeopathy are very different in comparison to other medical systems. The Homoeopathic medicines are prepared according to the rule laid down by the founder of Homoeopathy Dr. C.F.S. Hahnemann. Factually the concept of dynamisation came in existence after a lot of work done by Dr. Hahnemann. In earlier days of homoeopathic practice, evidences are present, when Hahnemann used mother tincture of the herbs to treat the patient. Later he changed the concept and tried to minimise the power of medicine by invention of drug potentisation process.

With regard to this method, Hahnemann states: “taught by a hundredfold experience at the sick bed during the last eight or ten years, I could not help descending to the decillion-fold dilution, and I find the smallest portion of a drop (as the dose is one globule the size of a poppy seed (300 of which weigh only a grain), moistened with it, we give less than 1/1000 th of a drop of the fold medicinal dilution spiritualized (potentized) by succession, for with a single drop many more than 1000 such small globules can be moistened) of this for a dose quite sufficient to fulfil every curative intention attainable with this medicine.”

Today the Homoeopathic medicines are available in the following forms.

• Mother tinctures
• Decimal scale
• Centicimal scale
• 50 Millessimal scale

It is up to the decision of the Homoeopathic physician, which scale and potency is selected according to the individual need of the patient, considering his vital power, susceptibility, idiosyncrasy and other essential factors.
Objective:
Homoeopathy considers the objective of potentization to be as follows:

• The most deadly poison or virulent medicinal substances become harmless when used in the potentized state. These substances are transformed into beneficial remedies after dynamization process. For example: snake venom, arsenic, mercury, etc.
• The potentized medicine actions are more wide-spread, more deeper and longer lasting.
• Many substances are not active in the crude state and their use as a medicine is too limited. Through the dynamization process their inert healing power is made available, for example: charcoal, silica, common salt etc.
• It is believed in homoeopathy that vital force is dynamic in its nature and if this force is affected by the disease, it can be cured only by the dynamic power of the selected medicine and not by the crude quantity.
• Some medicinal substances have a very limited sphere of use. Through the process of dynamization their uses can effectively be broadened.

The Introduction of the drug dynamization theory is introduced in the Organons of Medicine, Fifth edition, published in 1833.

The homoeopathic system is based fundamentally on the choice of the remedy, laid down according to the principles of the Law of Similars, that the medicine should have the power to produce the most similar disease symptoms for curing the disease in healthy humans.

Every crude substance has a latent medicinal property in itself. Through the process of drug dynamization the latent property of the substance is awakened, and is developed for action to an incredible degree.

Dr. Stuart Close, M.D. writes that “the Homoeopathic potentization is a mathmetico-mechanical process for the reduction, according to scale, of crude, inert of poisonous medicinal substances to a state of physical solubility, physiological assimilability and therapeutic activity and harmlessness, for use as homoeopathic healing remedies

Hahnemann laid a principle in aphorism 275, the suitableness of a medicine for any given case does not depend on its accurate Homoeopathic selection alone, but likewise on the proper size or rather smallness of dose. Under this direction the patient is given medicine in a very minute dose. That means although the dose is smallest in quantity, but it produces least possible excitation of the Vital force to effect the necessary changes. The concept of minimal dose is conjoined with the drug dynamisation process or say potentization. The Law of Minimum has many advatages.

1. The minimal dose does not damage any vital organ of body, so there is no risk of drug affects or drug addiction.
2. The concept of the minimum dose can be ascertained by the law of Arndt-Shultz with the established facts that small dose stimulate, medium dose paralyze and the large doses kills. It can be said that action of one substance will not be same if they are administered in small and large quantity on living matters.
3. To avoid undesired aggravation of any kind.
4. The dynamic action of a drug produces uncommon, peculiar, strange, rare and other distinguished symptoms when used in the minimum quantity, when proving
5. the remedies fine and finest quality of action for cure purposes, is possible in the minimal doses.
6. To maintain the similarity of the sequence of the drug and the disease, minimal dose is necessary
7. According to Fincke the law of quantity is thus “The quality of the action of Homoeopathic remedy is determined by its quantity in inver ratio.”
8. Law of least action is formulated by the French mathematician Maupertius: “the quantity of action necessary to affect any changes in nature is the least possible. The decisive amount is always a minimum, an infinitesimal”.

It was long believed that Hahanemann always used single medicine at a time as a rule, which is followed by the subsequent followers of the Homoeopathy — but recently documents have come to light that suggested he did otherwise. However, in Classical Homoeopathy, largely due to the influence of Kent, it is not common practice to mix remedies at the same time.

Efficacy of homeopathical medicines having regard to the minimal dose administered in low potencies have not gained much ground with the scientific world. Neither the homeopaths nor their adversaries had any idea how these medicines worked on the human body. But they do work it was commonly believed by homeopaths and their patients. With the advent of Quantum Mechanics, effets of particles at the subatomic levels have been brought within the scope of examination. Modern psychiatary in the hands of alopaths is directing its drug-research on the basis of boilogical evidence of elecricity present in the human body in mini-micro volts. If the whole matter could be examined on the altar of science by consenting alopaths, physicists and homeopaths, mankind could take full advantage of the great science struggling to get a permanent foothold in the arena of medical sciences.

In fact the Homoeopathic remedies are proved in single and the materia medica is built up with the collection of symptoms observed by the provers. These symptoms are collected and segregated according to their characteristics. The effects of the medicine is tested either in planned provings or they have got collected from the accidental provings.

Another aspect is that only a single remedy is required, which is most similar matching the symptoms of the sick person.

The other problem is, the physician will not understand which medicine is curing if more than the single remedy is used, this might deviate from the use of just one remedy.

The possibility of synergistic and/or antagonic actions cannot be ruled out, if more than one medicine is used. The effect will be the sum total of the effects of the separate drugs. The diluted ingredients of the drug may even result in interaction and could cause the adverse effects in the body.

The concept of Vital force, which is governing the human body comprehensively, needs a single identity. Therefore the medicine should be one to correct the disturbances and dishormony of the body by a single medicine at a time.

Vitalism was a part of mainstream science in the 18th century. In the twentieth century, medicine discarded vitalism in favour of the germ theory of disease, following the work of Louis Pasteur, Alexander Fleming, Joseph Lister and many others. Modern medicine sees bacteria and viruses as the causes of many diseases, but Kent and some modern homeopaths regard them as effects, not causes, of disease. Others have adapted to the views of modern medicine by referring to disturbances in, and stimulation of, the immune system, rather than the vital force.

As previously stated, homeopathy stemmed in part from the idea of medical similars, the idea that ‘like cures like’ while Hahnemann was translating into German the Materia Medica (1789) of William Cullen, the so-called Scottish Hippocrates. On reading that Cinchona bark (which contains quinine) was effective because it was bitter, Hahnemann felt this implausible because other substances were as bitter but had no therapeutic value. To understand the effects of Cinchona bark, he decided to take it himself, and saw that his reactions were similar to the symptoms of the disease it was used to treat. At least one writer has suggested that Hahnemann was hypersensitive to quinine, and that he may have had an allergic reaction.

Yet, this proving experiment by Hahnemann was by no means unique, as others before him had tried the same approach, such as, for example, Anton von Störck (1731-1803), “in the 1760’s, who advocated treatment by cautious use of poisons.” Indeed, Hahnemann had studied briefly in Vienna (1777) where Störck eventually became head of the University. The proving idea had also been recommended by the great Swiss medical botanist, Albrecht von Haller, (1708-77), who Hahnemann admired, and whose Materia Medica he translated in 1806. It might be said the proving experiment came to Hahnemann from several previous sources.

For Hahnemann, the whole body and spirit was the focus of therapy, not just localised disease. Hahnemann spent a lot of time with his patients, asking them not only about their symptoms or illness, but also about their daily lives. This gentle approach contrasted with the violent forms of heroic medicine common at the time, which included techniques such as bleeding as a matter of course.

Nearly as important as Hahnemann to the development of homeopathy was James Tyler Kent (1849 – 1921). Kent’s influence in the USA was limited, but in the UK, his ideas became the homeopathic orthodoxy by the end of the First World War. His most important contribution may be his repertory, which is still used today. Kent’s attempt to rescue an idealized pure homeopathy from what he saw as its degenerate mongrel forms was authoritarian, as he sought to re-emphasize the metaphysical and clinical aspects of Hahnemann’s teachings, in particular:

• insistence on the core doctrines of miasm and vital force;
• emphasis on case totality rather than rote prescribing for ‘named diseases’
• emphasis on psychological symptoms (to supplement physical pathology) in prescribing; and regular use of very high potencies.
• Influenced by Swedenborgianism, Kent reputedly emphasized ‘spiritual factors’ as the root cause of disease.

“…for it goes to the very primitive wrong of the human race, the very first sickness of the human race that is the spiritual sickness… which in turn laid the foundation for other diseases.”

This miasm theory was first published in 1828. Though Hahnemann first suspected miasms in 1816, he took 12 years before he published his views. He adopted a reclusive lifestyle while residing in Koethen and his new inclination towards metaphysical pursuits may explain his sudden adoption of Olfaction (inhaling the remedy), which he continued to use until his death in Paris in 1843. Olfaction might derive from Arabian medicine and the art of Perfumery.

The miasm of Psora, he concluded, underpinned most of the chronic diseases known to medicine. Miasma, from the Greek for ‘stain’, was an old medical concept, used for “pestiferous exhalations”. The sense of this is indicated by Hahnemann’s Note 2 to §11 of the Organon: “…a child with small-pox or measles communicates to a near, untouched healthy child in an invisible manner (dynamically) the small-pox or measles, … in the same way as the magnet communicated to the near needle the magnetic property…”

According to Hahnemann, miasmatic infection causes local symptoms, usually in the skin. If these are suppressed by external medication, the hidden cause goes deeper, and manifests itself later as organ pathologies. In §80 of the Organon he asserted Psora to be the cause of such diseases as epilepsy, cyphosis, cancer, jaundice, deafness, and cataract.

Even in his own time, many followers of Hahnemann, including Hering, made almost no reference to Hahnemann’s concept of chronic diseases. Today, some homeopathic practitioners find Hahnemann’s theory difficult to reconcile with current knowledge of immunology, genetics, microbiology and pathology, as it seems to ignore the importance of genetic, congenital, metabolic, nutritional, and degenerative factors in sickness; the theory also fails to differentiate between the multitude of infectious diseases. However, most insist that the key elements of his theory are valid. For instance, most of them believe that the fundamental cause of disease is internal and constitutional (i.e. the susceptibility to becoming ill), and that it is contrary to good health to suppress symptoms, especially skin eruptions and discharges. They also accept Hahnemann’s concept of latent Psora, the early signs of an organism’s imbalance, which indicate that treatment is needed to prevent the development of more advanced disease.

The miasm theory is not the only meaningful aspect of homeopathy. For example, Hahnemann strongly advocated good hygiene, fresh air, regular exercise, and good nutrition as precursors of good health; he was also a pioneer in 1792-3 of humane treatment of the insane (1796, Description of Klockenbring During his Insanity) a year before William Tuke and Philippe Pinel, and he published tracts in which he described the cause of Cholera as “excessively minute, invisible, living creatures” Asiatic Cholera, 1831. Hahnemann’s acceptance of the emerging idea of infectious disease before its final proof by Robert Koch and Louis Pasteur indicates some of his medical views incorporated ideas that were at the cutting-edge of contemporary science. These 17th-century epidemiological theories built on the ideas of Girolamo Fracastoro in the 16th century and the discovery of microbes by Anton van Leeuwenhoek one hundred years previously.

The dilution factor at each stage is traditionally 1:10 (‘D’ or ‘X’ potencies) or 1:100 (‘C’ potencies). Hahnemann advocated 30C dilutions for most purposes, i.e. dilution by a factor of 10030 = 1060. As Avogadro’s number is only 6.02 × 1023 particles/mole, the chance of any molecule of the original substance being present in a 15C solution is small, and it is extremely unlikely that one molecule of the original solution would be present in a 30C dilution. For a perspective on these numbers, there are in the order of 1032 molecules of water in an Olympic size swimming pool; to expect to get one molecule of a 15C solution, one would need to take 1% of the volume of such a pool, or roughly 25 metric tons of water. Thus, even homeopathic remedies of a high “potency” contain, with overwhelming probability, only water. Practitioners of homeopathy believe that this water retains some ‘essential property’ of one of the substances that it has contacted in the past.

Water will have been in contact with millions of different substances in its history. According to this molecular paradigm, any glass of water must be regarded as an extreme dilution of almost any agent you care to mention. Thus, critics argue that by drinking water one receives homeopathic treatment for every imaginable condition. Proponents of homeopathy are unable to accept the molecular paradigm as a complete account of life phenomena and therapeutics. They believe that the methodical dilution of a particular substance, beginning with a 10% solution and working downwards, produces a therapeutically active ‘remedy’, in contrast to regular water which is therapeutically inert. However, in terms of chemistry, a dilution of anything at 30C is identical to water.

Alternative methods of preparation
“High potency remedies” were first produced in the 1830s. Though Hahnemann wished to see 30c as standard potency in homeopathy, the majority of his contemporaries preferred tinctures and 3x, while others, like the powerfully-built horse-trainer, Caspar Julius Jenichen (1787-1849), General Korsakoff (1788-1853) and Dr N Schreter (1803-1864), were busy raising potency to heights beyond his wildest dreams.

Jenichen sat or stood stripped naked to the waist, holding the bottle in his fist in an oblique direction from left to right, and shook it in a vertical direction. The fluid, at every stroke, emitted a sound like the ringing of silver coins. He paused after every 25th potency, and the muscles of his naked arm vibrated…he was latterly able to give 8400 strokes in an hour.

Such high potencies could not be made by traditional methods, but required succussion without dilution (Jenichen), higher dilution factors (LM potencies are diluted by a factor of 50,000), or machines which integrate dilution and succussion into a continuous process (Korsakoff). Such a Korsakoff potentising machine can be seen (here) and (here). Some old potentising devices can be seen (here). Such machines are still on sale today and some manufacturers claim it is undefined “vibrations” that produce the healing effect and, when the correct vibration is selected, only water need be added to produce a remedy. Today, radionics potentising devices are used by many homeopaths to prepare remedies. These are based on the work of the British engineer, Malcom Rae (1913-1979) and the potentising devices he developed in the 1960s.

Yet another technique used by few homeopaths involves using “a paper remedy. Write the remedy and potency on a piece of paper and place the paper on the left hand side of the body with the writing towards the body.” One homeopath, “finds out what they need, writes the remedy down on a piece of paper, they put it in their pocket and it works.” In essence, this comprises an emerging alternative homeopathic tradition, “`paper remedies’ i.e., a name of a remedy just written on a piece of paper.” However, skeptics might observe that this procedure is essentially a textbook example of how to produce the Placebo Effect and that any success at using such a technique should be weighed carefully (and preferably with supporting experimental evidence in the form of a double-blind placebo-controlled study) against the possibility that nothing more than mental suggestion due to a placebo is at work.

The practitioner’s choice of what potency is appropriate derives in part from a judgement as to whether the disease is acute and superficial or ‘deeper’ and more chronic in nature; whether it is primarily physical or more mental/emotional; the patient’s sensitivity and previous reactions to remedies; and the practitioner’s preferred posology (dosing regimen), e.g. low potency repeated often, vs. high potency repeated seldom. For example, French and German homeopaths generally prefer to use lower potencies than their American and British counterparts. Most homeopaths assert that the choice of potency is secondary to the choice of remedy: i.e. that a well-chosen remedy will act in a variety of potencies, but an approximately matched remedy might act only in certain potencies, or not at all.

The ‘law of similars’ is an ancient medical maxim, but its modern form is based on Hahnemann’s conclusion that a constellation of symptoms induced by a given homeopathic remedy in a group of healthy individuals will cure a similar set of symptoms in the sick. Symptom patterns associated with various remedies are determined by ‘provings’, in which healthy volunteers are given remedies, often in molecular doses, and the resulting physical, mental and spiritual symptoms are compiled by observers into a ‘Drug Picture’.

Hahnemann says of the attitude his first proving inspired in him: “with this first trial broke upon me the dawn that has since brightened into the most brilliant day of the medical art; that it is only in virtue of their power to make the healthy human being ill that medicines can cure morbid states, and indeed, only such morbid states are composed of symptoms which the drug to be selected for them can itself produce in similarity on the healthy.”

Homeopathic practitioners rely on two types of reference in prescribing. The Homeopathic Materia Medicae comprise alphabetical indexes of Drug Pictures organized by remedy and describe the symptom patterns associated with individual remedies. The Homeopathic repertory consists of an index of sickness symptoms, listing all remedies associated with specific symptoms. The first such Homeopathic repertory was George Jahr’s Repertory, published in 1835.

Hahnemann first tested in homeopathic provings substances commonly used as medicines in his time, such as Antimony and Rhubarb, and also poisons like Arsenic, Mercury and Belladonna.

Hahnemann recorded his first provings of 27 drugs in the Fragmenta de viribus in 1805 and later in his Materia Medica Pura, which contained 65 proven drugs. He was most heavily engaged in proving in the 1790s and early 1800s, but he never abandoned these experiments. Another phase of proving commenced with his Miasm theory and The Chronic Diseases, published in 1828, and containing 48 freshly ‘proven’ drugs.

Kent’s Lectures on Homoeopathic Materia Medica (1905) lists 217 remedies, and new substances are continually added to contemporary versions. Homeopathy uses many animal, plant, mineral, and synthetic substances. Examples include Natrum muriaticum (sodium chloride or table salt), Lachesis muta (the venom of the bushmaster snake), Opium, and Thyroidinum (thyroid hormone). Other homeopathic remedies, (‘isopathic’ remedies’), involve dilution of the agent or product of the disease. Rabies nosode, for example, is made by diluting the saliva of a rabid dog. Some modern homeopaths are exploring the use of more esoteric substances, known as “imponderables” because they do not originate from a material but from electromagnetic energy presumed to have been “captured” by alcohol or lactose (X-ray, Sol (sunlight), Positronium, and Electricitas (electricity) or through the use of a telescope (Polaris). Recent ventures by homeopaths into even more esoteric substances include Tempesta (thunderstorm), and Berlin wall.

Today, about 3000 remedies are used in homeopathy; about 300 are based on comprehensive Materia Medica information, about 1500 on relatively fragmentary knowledge and the rest are used experimentally in difficult cases based on the law of similars, either without knowledge of their homeopathic properties or through speculative knowledge independent of the law of similars. This modern approach also harks back to the ancient ‘doctrine of signatures,’ which Hahnemann definitely rejected as uncertain guesswork: “The ancients imagined that the yellow colour of the juice of… (Chelidonium, Yellow Poppy) was an indication (signature) of its utility in bilious diseases. The moderns from this extended its employment to hepatic diseases…the importance of human health does not admit of any such uncertain directions for the employment of medicines. It would be criminal frivolity to rest contented with such guesswork at the bedside of the sick. Only that which the drugs themselves unequivocally reveal of their peculiar powers in their effects on the healthy human body – that is to say, only their pure symptoms – can teach us loudly and clearly when they can be advantageously used with certainty; and this is when they are administered in morbid states very similar to those they are able to produce on the healthy body.”

Examples of this impulse to expand the materia medica include: the use of an isopathic (disease associated) agent as a first prescription in a ‘stuck’ case, when the beginning of disease coincides with a specific event such as vaccination; the use of a chemically-related substance when a remedy that was well-indicated fails. A good example of this is found in the Bowel Nosodes which were introduced by the British homeopaths, Edward Bach (1886-1936), John Paterson (1890-1954) and Charles Edwin Wheeler (1868-1946) in the 1920s. Their use is based on the variable bowel bacterial flora thought to be associated with persons of different homeopathic constitutional types. Though receiving more attention today, the Bowel Nosodes are rarely used outside British homeopathy.

More recently, homeopathy has embraced substances based on their elemental classification (the periodic table or biological taxonomy). This approach may create neat systems for grouping remedies and classifying the ever-burgeoning Materia Medica, but its usefulness is questioned by some purists on the basis that it involves speculation about remedy action without provings.

There are many methods for determining the most-similar remedy (the simillimum), and homeopaths sometimes disagree. This is partly due to the complexity of the ‘totality of symptoms’ concept; homeopaths do not use all symptoms, but decide which are the most characteristic; this subjective evaluation of case analysis rests crucially on knowledge and experience. Finally, the Drug Picture in the Materia Medica is always more comprehensive than the symptoms exhibited by any individual. These factors mean that a homeopathic prescription can remain presumptive until it is verified by testing the effect of the remedy on the patient.

Alternative modes of selecting remedies include medical dowsing or the use of other psychic powers. However, these methods are controversial and not accepted by most homeopathic practitioners.

The law of similars is more of a guiding principle than a scientific law. It is not built on a hypothesis that can be falsified; a failure to cure homeopathically can always be attributed to incorrect selection of a remedy:

“I have often heard physicians tell me that it was due to suggestion that my medicines acted so well; but my answer to this is, that I suggest just as strongly with my wrong remedy as with the right one, and my patients improve only when they have received the similar or correct remedy”. –JT Kent.