Dynamization

Research papers and other publications which do not fit comfortably into the above headings but inform the subject.
Mark
Site Admin
Posts: 1812
Joined: 12 Jan 2006, 11:26
Location: Forest of Dean, UK
Contact:

Dynamization

Post

Dynamization

Amarilys de Toledo César
CULTURA HOMEOPÁTICA • V. 2 • Nº 5 • OUT-DEZ • 2003 • P. 15-41
Changes in material substances, especially the
medicinal ones, through trituration with a
non-medicinal powder, or when dissolved
through agitation with a non-medicinal fluid,
are so incredible that verge upon the
miraculous, and it is most fortunate that the
discovery of such changes belongs to
Homeopathy.
Hahemann, The Chronic Diseases

Introduction
Upon hearing the expression “homeopathic remedies”,
one of the first ideas that come to our minds is “very
diluted”. If we know a little bit more, we may also think
“they are dynamized”. But, what does “dynamized”
mean? How is dynamization done? How are homeopathic
remedies made?
“Dynamization” comprises the process of diluting
and agitating solutions. This constitutes one of Homeopathy’s
foundations and it was taught by Hahnemann,
who developed it by both logical reflection and intuition,
as he sought better ways to apply the Law of Similars into
practice.
Notwithstanding its essential role in the preparation
of homeopathic remedies, many practitioners still
ignore many aspects of it, and this is immediately perceived
through basic mistakes in the prescriptions they
write. A prescription is the written document that tells the
pharmacist what he/she should do, so it can leave no room
for doubts.
The present article may seem very basic, but it aims
precisely at reviewing all pharmaceutical aspects essential
to a right prescription, contributing thus to better therapeutic
results.
In order to accomplish our goal, we will discuss
pertinent literature and add our personal experience.
Terms
Many Brazilian sources employ the terms “diluting
and dynamizing” instead of “diluting and agitating”. It’s
true that whenever we agitate a previously diluted solution
we are finishing the process of dynamization. This
explains why the word “dynamization” - the final result of
the procedure - is used in the place of “agitation”. Keyne
states that in France, “dynamization” is regarded a synonym

of “succussion”. Although less employed, the fittest term is
“potentiation”, as it’s believed that the procedure enhances
the homeopathic action of the substance (1).
Rather than terms, it’s more important to accurately
characterize Hahnemann’s new procedure especially
as it represents the first procedure in history that
involves a dramatic reduction of the amount of medicinal
matter in the making of an active solution. Moreover,
many authors affirm that the more diluted the substance,
the more potent it becomes.
Indeed, “dynamization”, from the Greek dynamis
- that Hahnemann himself employed – means “force,
potency” (5, 12). Aurélio, the most authoritative Portuguese
language dictionary, defines “dynamization” as
“according to Homeopathy, release of the therapeutic
energy of a remedy through dilution or diminution.” (12)
As the final product of the dynamizing process is
called a “potency”, we are faced once again with the idea
that the increase in activity directly depends upon the
number of times that the double procedure dilution-agitation
has been performed. An analysis of actual prescriptions
shows that this is precisely the belief of homeopathic
practitioners: they usually begin treatments by prescribing
lower potencies and go on prescribing ever higher
potencies. Basic research data suggest instead that the
pharmacological activity of drugs is better described by a
sinusoid than by the straight inclined line that translates
the notion that “the higher the potency, the more active
the solution”. Homeopathic practitioners still refer to “inefficient
potencies”, which may well represent the empirical
proof of the research hypothesis mentioned above.
Thus, it would be very interesting to verify through careful
research protocols, what is the actual clinical answer
in relation to the variation of dynamizations (2, 3, 4).
It’s a fact that clinical activity is induced by
dynamized solutions, diluted well above the Avogadro
limit; the first conclusion is that homeopathic pharmacology
plainly contradicts classical pharmacology
(dose-dependent effects), and this from its beginnings,
200 years ago. After the initial shock, we are tempted to
deepen our knowledge concerning this phenomenon.
In order to do so, we will review data concerning the
different procedures of dilution and agitation, the variables
that may act on these procedures and the
dynamizing procedures employed since Hahnemann’s
time to the present.Dilution
When Hahnemann first attempted to apply the
Law of Similars to the treatment of actual patients, he
immediately realized that he needed to prescribe very
small amounts of drugs as they produced symptoms by
themselves. Hence, he began to dilute substances in the
ratio of 1 part of active substance to 100 parts of diluent
vehicle. With this he had created the centesimals - now
called CHs, or Hahnemannian centesimals. The father
of Homeopathy mentions using water and alcohol, probably
to preserve solutions.
Winston explains that the original potencies were
designated by a small-case “c” as the upper- case letter
“C” may easily be mistaken with the Greek digit C=100.
Many of the earliest prescribers named their 200c potencies
as “2C” (10).
By the end of his life, Hahnemann used therapeutic
solutions successively diluted 200 times, always intercalating
agitations, that he called “succussions” (11).
Agitation
In The Chronic Diseases - thus, before the
Organon’s 6th edition - it is written:
“... Then, 1 grain is dissolved in equal parts of
water and alcohol and dynamized through 27
vials, with 2 succussions.” (6)
Clearly, Hahnemann initially applied 2
succussions to his dynamizations. Later, he experimented
with 10 succussions and even more until after harsh criticism,
he realized that the increase in the number and
strength of succussions made unbearable the violence of
the final solution’s effects. Finally, upon feeling the need
of prescribing even less amounts of drugs, he increased
the ratio of dilutions to more than 1:50,000 at each step
of the procedure, rating it as “my best method of
dynamization”. At the same time, he increased the number
of succussions to 100.
As the procedure of “dynamizing” comprises both
diluting and agitating, they are usually discussed together.
Yet we may separate them in order to understand each of
them more deeply.
Dilution may be manual – the vial is manually
beaten against a semi-rigid surface (it is told that
Hahnemann used a leather-covered book) or mechanical
– when some appliance is used. There are those that
believe that our “personal energy” (an expression very
difficult to define) in the process of manual dilution may
interfere in the final result, hence mechanical procedures
should be preferred. To this, others answer that such “perpersonal
energy”, if it exists, may both positively or negatively
affect the outcome.
Other factor that may affect the outcome of the
agitation process may be classified as mechanical (number
of succussions, amplitude of the succussion motion,
intensity of the impact against the chosen surface, weight
of the vial) or physico-chemical (density of the liquid,
environmental temperature, atmospheric composition
inside the vial).
In the course of time, Hahnemann tested different
number of succussions (5, 6). There are no available
descriptions of the amplitude of each motion. Concerning
strength, he would rate them as “strong”, but it wasn’t
objectively measured. Finally, Hahnemann established
that the vial should be filled to 2/3 of its capacity (5).
When describing the method of preparation of
remedies in the Organon’s 6th edition, Hahnemann was
very careful to precisely determine - through the number
of drops - a very small volume of the fluid to be agitated
(100 drops of strong alcohol, i.e. 2 mL). As he had already
established that the vial’s content couldn’t be
smaller than half of it, he established the standard use of
small vials, which would suffer a very strong power of
agitation, through “100 strong succussions”. (5)
The agitated fluid is composed of a solution of
water and ethanol, its density varying from 0.8 to 1 g/l.
There are no descriptions of the possible influence of temperature,
but there are mentions to dynamizations performed
in nitrogen atmospheres. (7)
Even when he increased from 2 to 100 agitations,
Hahnemann would perform them manually. Notwithstanding,
since his time to the present, there was always
an interest to develop machines. Authors that lived at the
time of the Industrial Revolution wondered what could
be the highest possible potency that will still keep pharmacological
activity. Thus they experimented ever increasing
dynamizations, and tried to build machines to
help them in the process.
A trend was established to use 100 succussions
even in regular centesimals - it became the standard in
Brazil at the present time . This made pharmacists easily
develop repetitive strain injury. On the other hand, the
advancement of technology and the hope to set a definite
standard in the preparation of homeopathic remedies,
set forth a trend to use “mechanic arms”. Brazil has developed
its own models. (8) Yet, it should be taken into account
that many homeopathic practitioners consider that
any deviation from Hahnemann’s original procedures
exclude the remedy thus prepared from the category of
“hahnemannian”.
In Europe, there were developed machines thatmake vials vibrate, very similar to those employed in
odontologic offices to homogenize mixtures, such as those
fabricated by Belgian-based Labotics and sold in the
Northern hemisphere (Europe, United States, Canada
and Japan) (14).
So, when manual and mechanic agitations are
compared, so many variables interact that impede their
standardization.
LM Dynamizations
Hahnemann was very careful to set rules in order
that remedies should be reliable. He began by extracting
– exotic dried and native fresh – plants through alcohol
(tinctures); whenever succulent or fresh plants were available,
he would use their juice. Probably, he realized that
when he changed the solvent, he would extract different
fractions of the plant. From Arabic physicians, he learnt
how to triturate all kinds of substances, no matter whether
soluble or not, mineral, vegetable and animal, dried or
fresh, all was to be triturated with lactose in a porcelain
mortar.
... 1 drop of the juice and the same amount of
lactose, triturating until the millionth. Then 1
grain is dissolved in equal parts of water and
alcohol and dynamized through 27 vials, with
2 succussions. Experience shows me that the
juice seems to acquire more dynamization
when triturated.”(6)
In such manner, diluting matter with the help of a
powder that he thought was inert and agitating by the
motion of the pestle, he was able to employ all kind of
substances as remedies. He was free from solubility limitations
and on the other hand, he obtained very interesting
results (“Experience shows me that the juice seems to
acquire more dynamization when triturated” (6)).
“In order to obtain homogeneity in the
preparation of homeopathic remedies,
especially the antipsoric, at least in the form of
a powder, I advise to only reduce to the
millionth potency and prepare from it the
solutions and potencies as needed.” (6)
After 3 triturations in the ratio 1:100 (lactose), the
obtained product was to be diluted in a low alcoholic
solution (0.06 g of powder in 500 drops of a solution
prepared from 4 parts of water and 1 part of “strong”
alcohol). From this solution, a new dilution (1 drop in
100 drops of “strong alcohol”), followed by 100 “strong
succussions”, which were standardized as it was always
him who prepared them).
Non-hahnemannian dynamizations
Decimal
It’s attributed to Hering the idea of diluting substances
in the ratio 1:10. Winston says that:
“In 1833, Hering began to test dilutions in the
ratio 1:10. By the end of the decade, both
Samuel Dubs in the United States and
Vehsemayer in Germany, began to prepare
remedies in this scale. American potencies
were designated by an “X”, the Roman digit
for “10”, while European potencies were
designated as “D”, from “decimal” - 3X or D3.”
(10)
In our days, the use of decimal potencies is widespread,
especially in relation to the so-called “complexes”,
mixtures of dynamizations, usually at low potencies. As
the ratio of dilution is much smaller, we may understand
why someone may prescribe a D1 - which has no equivalence
in the centesimal scale -, but it is very hard to understand
why someone may prescribe a D60. No available
data show that they are more or less effective than
centesimals. On the other hand, mathematical equivalence
is senseless, as there are no molecules in so much
diluted solutions.
Moreover, the absolute ban of scale equivalences
established by the FHBII reminds us that, precisely, its
first edition allowed such procedure. The first edition
recommended 10 succussions in the case of decimals and
20 in the case of centesimals. The underlying idea was to
establish an equivalence between the D4 (diluted to 10 -
4, with 4 X 10 succussions = 40) and the C2 (also diluted
to 10 -4, with 2 X 20 succussions = 40) (12, 13). It seems
proper to state that two solutions, diluted a different number
of times, in different ratios and number of agitations
- no matter that the final number of agitations might be
the same-, may not be considered as equivalent concerning
their therapeutic properties before further research is
thoroughly conducted.
The stock of decimal potencies is much smaller
than centesimals’ in Brazilian pharmacies. Another
problem is the availability of basic pharmaceutical
forms: when there are mother tinctures available, it is very
easy to dynamize them by diluting them to 1% or 10%.
But if the procedure needs trituration at its beginning,
there is no way how centesimals may be changed intodecimals, the only possible way is to obtain the original
substance, which usually it ‘s not easy. This is the reason
why many pharmacies refuse to fill decimal prescriptions.
The present trend, as suggested by the
pharmacopoea, is to perform the same number of
succussions - 100 - in every dilution, no matter their scale.
It is thus possible that clinical results will become more
markedly different. Further research is needed to verify
this fact.
Korsakov
Contemporary of Hahnemann, Korsakov, a Russian
of noble descent, learned of Homeopathy after being
successfully treated by it. As a result, he became interested
in it and introduced it in his country. As every pioneer,
he needed to prepare his own remedies and faced
with the difficulty of travelling carrying a large number of
vials, he suggested to Hahnemann the idea of using only
one, that would be filled, agitated, emptied and again
filled. Hahnemann found the idea interesting, but at the
moment he was devoted to different matters. Korsakov
tested the remedies prepared according to his new technique,
obtaining good results.
Remedies prepared according to Korsakov´s
method are diluted in the centesimal scale, yet its precision
may be lesser than Hahnemann´s original method’s.
Few practitioners prescribe Korsakovian potencies in
Brazil and thus, few pharmacies fill such prescriptions.
Agitation is accomplished by 100 manual or mechanic
succussions.
Residue left after every emptying of the vial may
be weighed, this increases the method’s precision, as it
shows that variations are very limited, perhaps very similar
to those inherent to Hahnemann´s method. The main
difference resides in the fact that that in Hahnemann’s
procedure, a fraction of a dynamized solution is separated
and poured in a new, clean vial, containing 99 parts
of inert hydroalcoholic solution, while according to the
Russian’s method, 99 parts of the inert hydroalcoholic
solution are poured into the same vial, which contains
some residue of the previous dynamization. This procedure
has been criticized as it involves a mixture of different
dynamizations, from the initial to the final one. Yet, if
we take into account that each addition of fresh
hydroalcoholic solution becomes homogeneized with
the residue, the remaining solution in the vial will suffer
a transformation rather than a mixture. Probably, the
fact that we don’t use new vials at each step, make the
final solutions so different from Hahnemann’s, that may
elicit very different clinical results.
In the 1960s, France imposed serious restrictions
that banned any potencies higher than CH30 but as an
offshoot of the creation of the European Union, a Sympose
on Korsakovian potencies in Paris permitted the prescription
of these potencies.
Jack Hendrickxs, from Belgian-based Labotics,
built a mechanic dynamizer grounded on Korsakov’s
principle. After the the vial is filled and agitated by 300
fast small motions, air enters the vial, expelling the fluid;
only 1% of the original volume remains. The process is
repeated as required. The last step is a regular
hahnemannian dynamization in hydroalcoholic solution
(for preservation purposes), which is named according
the number of times that the vial was successively
filled-agitated-emptied. For instance, if this happened
200 times, the final solution will be called K200.
Although Korsakov established that the full procedure
must start from the original substance - and this is
still the practice in many countries - FHBII rules that a
Korsakovian dynamization must begin from a CH30.
Due to financial reasons, the same procedure may be
accomplished by employing 2000 liters of purified water
until reaching solutions that we called “100,000K”. It is
noteworthy the use of purified water instead of the traditional
hydroalcoholic solution, as mechanic procedures
consume too much diluent. (12, 14).
New questions arise: besides the option between
manual and mechanic agitations, the use of water as
diluent will also alter the final solution? What is the difference
between a Korsakovian potency developed from
a CH30 and another that followed Korsakov’s instructions
from the beginning? The different combinations of
the solvent (water or hydroalcoholic solution) and the
initial substance (CH30 or raw matter) will elicit different
clinical results?
Dynamization machines and the fluxion
equipment used in Brazil
Hahnemann had already wondered “What is the
highest dilution that still shows activity?” Jahr thought
that “The higher the dynamization, the stronger the individualizing
properties of a drug”. It was natural, then,
that several homeopaths would ask what may be the effect
of ever higher dynamizations. Children of the Industrial
Revolution, they sought mechanic procedures to
manufacture such potencies. Every single inventor would
strive to protect his invention through elaborate explanations.
Skinner, for instance, wrote:
“It may be said that high potencies aren’t what
they seem to be, because their method isn’t
Hahnemann´s. But this does not apply to
Boericke’s, Jenichen’s, Dunham’s, Lippe’s and
my own, which are produced according to a
procedure that if Hahnemann would be able
to see, he would approve, as all essential
points are scrupulously observed and actually
improved and in less time, mistakes are
almost impossible, as so much perfect are the
methods employed.”
Dunham was one of the first to mechanize the
procedure of dynamization. He believed that the use of
strong forces would elicit better results. He put 120 vials
at the end of a windmill’s wheel wooden blades, which
would generate an oscilating motion that made vials go
up and down 50 cm high. The force applied - approximately
half a ton - was much more stronger than the one
a human arm may effect. He used 125 beatings at each
step. His potencies, 200D (“D” from “Dunham”) took one
week to be ready and were prescribed by many American
doctors (15).
Jencihen held succussion as the most important
stage of the process and he believed that every 12
succussions increased the potency of the solution in 1
degree. This was an original notion of his (15).
German-born Boericke migrated to the United
States, where he joined the bookseller Tafel. Hering suggested
both to sell remedies besides books. Boericke eventually
would graduate as a physician and both established
Boericke & Tafel´s laboratory. He built a machine
that made centesimal dilutions, agitated 5 times, 100
potencies per minute. (15)
Bernhardt Fincke prepared potencies according to
different procedures. For instance, he would begin with
K30 and succussion them 180 times per minute. He patented
his method as “fluxion”. He put a CH30 in a 30 ml
vial, and made a continual flux of water pass through it .
He believed that every 30 mL of water, the potency would
increase in 1 degree. When the desired potency was reached,
the vial would be emptied and filled with alcohol, with 2
succussions. Besides dynamizing merely by the passage of
water through an initial potency, he used tap water as he
believed that “a 30th has already been so much dynamized,
that it may not be destroyed by any chemical nor physical
agent, as it possesses a different nature.” (15)
Winston tells that Robinson, in 1941, alluded to
some apprehension in those that saw in Fincke´s proposal
“ a radical departure from all that was held as indispensable
in the process of dynamization. But, it’s a fact
that these machines became real and the their clinical
application seems uniformly satisfactory.” (15)
Skinner stated that once the vial was deeply penetrated
by the remedy, and assuming that the process of
atenuation is infinite, it would be impossible to “wash
out” its medicinal properties through cold water, but that
its therapeutic power would be much increased and that
only heat would be able to break the chain, to which he
attributed spiritual power.
Believing that succussion was not important, he
prepared Sulphur beginning from a drop of tincture and
a 60 mL vial, which he slowly filled with water. He emptied
it without any agitation and filled it again. After repeating
this procedure 1,000 times, he prescribed it to a
“Sulphur” patient. He says that its effect was so powerful,
that it needed to be antidoted. He also believed that his
potencies – with Kent’s strong approval – were truly
hahnemannian.
Swan would make water pass through a machine
full of holes, as a sprinkler, in order to “ elicit a perturbation
much more violent than the succussion”.
Allen´s machine is unknown, but it started from a
Kent’s CM. It was used by Ehrhardt & Karl of Chicago, to
prepare potencies from DM to DMM (500,000 to
500,000,000). It seems that some of them are still in use.
Argentine pharmacist Arturo Méndez bought some of these
extremely high potencies and sold them to Brazilian pharmacies.
Hence, we may be even able to find them in Brazil.
We should keep in mind that the scale of potencies
prescribed by Kent (30th, M, 10M, 50M, 100M, 500M and
MM) required mechanic dynamizers. Kent did n’t know
the Organon’s 6th edition and never heard of the LMs.
Winston suggests that to better identify
dynamizations, we should call them by the name of the
substance, potency and method of preparation, besides
the name of the manufacturer of the machine, as it appears
in old references (e.g.: 1 paper of Belladona CM
Fincke; Bryonia alba 30 B&T; Baptisia 8 MM Swan; 1
paper Sanicula 10M Tyrell).
As time went by, Homeopathy declined in the
United States. In Europe, until the 1960s, the French would
use mechanic machines to prepare higher potencies. One
of such machines was bought by the Laboratório
Homeoterápico. Arturo Méndez first saw it there and
afterwards he built one, which was bought by Brazilians.
This dynamizer, known as Lock’s model, promotes a continual
dilution of the initial substance, with simultaneous
agitation by blades. Argentinian visiting professors
strongly recommended its use. National models were
developed later on.
Méndez stated that
“The system is not perfect from ahahnemannian point of view and it must not
be compared to it. Yet, its therapeutic worth
has been proved in practice, through its use by
Argentinian and Brazilian homeopathic
physicians. Clinical experience upon human
beings gave its positive verdict. The system is
valid.”
As Continual Flux dynamizers began to be produced
in Brazil, they became available to a growing number
of pharmacies. Research conducted by the ABFH (Brazilian
Association of Homeopathic Pharmacies) showed
that several techniques were employed to prepare potencies
with a same machine: empty chamber, full chamber
and “microdrops”1. The Manual of Technical Norms of the
ABFH and the second edition of the Brazilian Homeopathic
Pharmacopoea include several articles that try to
standardize techniques. The Pharmacopoea makes financially
impossible to dynamize very high potencies. Brazilian
pharmacies own potencies prepared very differently -
sometimes, the procedure is even unknown -, bought in the
country and abroad. The third edition of the recently published
ABFH’s Manual includes the proposal voted at the
last general meeting: use of 100 rotations per step and
adoption of two criteria in the calculation and use of the
Continual Flux dynamizer: change of solvent according to
the volume of the chamber up to the FC ..., and the use of
the microdrop technique from this potency on. This makes
the ...potency less diluted than the previous one. It is the
consensus of most members of the ABFH, and it is still unknown
to physicians. (16, 17)
Whatever the technique, equipment or method
employed, we may say that the preparation of very high
potencies may only be accomplished through mechanic
dynamizers. It demands large amounts of purified water,
consequently, of electrical power, especially when
water is purified through distillation. The fact that the
Pharmacopoea rejects the use of the microdrop technique
- which actually diminishes material and energy consumption
- may make high potencies less available, notwithstanding
the fact that their use has increased in the
last decades, especially by Kentian homeopaths.
Discusion
We have reviewed several methods and scales of
dynamization. As none of them has been completely
abandoned, we may conclude that all of them may effect
clinical results. If it weren’t the case, we would have already
established their therapeutic inertia. Yet, we still
don’t know if any one of them is better than the others.
If neither dilution alone nor agitation alone increase
the effect of a substance, the “magic” only appears
when both procedures are performed together. Let’s
imagine a hypothetical situation: a CH30, prepared according
to Hahnemann´s traditional method. We decide
to further dilute it 1%: we expect that it will lose “strength”.
But if we now agitate it 100 times, it will recover its power.
Now it became a CH31 and, according to homeopathic
principles, “stronger” than before, when it was CH30. We
may wonder, “how such magic happened?” When did the
“weaker” previous solution became “stronger”? After
completing 100 succussions? Can’t be: Hahnemann only
used 2 to 10. We neither have standardized how these
agitations must be done. 100 succussions elicit stronger
effects? Does “”stronger” equates to “better” clinical results?
According to Hahnemann, it depends on each case.
Does the number “100” has any special meaning? Or may
be it possible that changes continue to occur indefinitely?
According to the LM method, the remedy is routinely prescribed
in daily doses, always shaking the vial 8 to 12
times before taking it. Thus, it would be agitated 10 times
X 10 days, 100 times before changing the potency. This is
the reason why we focus on the number “100”.
If now we were to try to understand the “magic” of
dynamizations prepared according to the method of
Continual Fluxion - where dilution and dynamization
are performed simultaneously -, such “magic” only becomes
perceptible after switching off the machine. Dilutions
made in different ratios and agitations varying in
time would produce different effects.
How are we to approach potentization accomplished
exclusively through dilution? Vieira explains that
in this case, agitation would be exclusively represented
by the brownian motion of particles. Once again, the same
question: what is more important, to dilute or to agitate?
Or both? Consecutively or simultaneously? (18)
Madeleine Bastide, at a 2002 meeting in São
Paulo, mentioned the experiments conducted by
Oberbaum in Israel. He studied the healing properties of
Silicea in injuries produced by metallic earrings in mice.
Both the 30th and 200th potencies shown similar results.
This may contradict some assumptions of clinical practitioners
that state that patients react to specific potencies
of a remedy and not to all of them.Anyway, it ‘s useful to keep always in mind that
besides having to be reproducible, experimental research
must be very carefully appraised when transferring its
results from animals to human beings.
Several researchers are using a pool of neighboring
potencies instead of testing a few chosen potencies, as
they argument that the action of substances doesn’t follow
directly the raise in potency, but they seem to follow
a sort of “see-saw” curve. By using a mixture of 4 or 5 close
potencies (e.g., a solution of the 28th, 29th, 30th, 31st and
32nd potencies instead of the 30th alone), it would increase
the probability of working with at least one active
potency .
Both Oberbaum’s and the pool’s results must make
us ponder on the limits of potencies. Yet, we have to insist
upon the fact that clinical results in humans are more
important than any experimental research, which merely
supply us data that must be controlled through careful
clinical observation.
Bastide also made some statements that seem
definite concerning dynamizations:
- they show dilution-dependent effect, which does
not equate to dose-dependent effect;
- their effect goes through glass, so that it may be
transmitted to or suppressed by electromagnetic fields.
Benveniste stated that potencies prepared by different
researchers -even with the help of mechanic agitators
- may elicit different results. In his own work, he uses
both traditional dynamizations and others prepared by
transmission through electromagnetic fields into a sealed
vial containing water. Besides this, by transforming the
action of a diluted substance into an electromagnetic signal,
it may be feed into computers. He says that “although
the voice of a live singer isn’t the same as her recorded
voice, the latter faithfully reproduces her voice”. As such,
it ‘s possible to record and transmit signals to faraway
places. He predicts that in the future it will be possible to
retrieve from files signals corresponding to the frequencies
required for the treatment of a particular individual.
That is to say, we will be able to expose water to such
frequencies and treat patients from afar.
This kind of thinking is disturbing. While many
homeopathic practitioners still think of doses as amounts,
many other imagine potencies as non quantitative
stimuli. Concerning the statement that potencies’ effects
get through glass, we wonder the consequences for our
stocks of remedies. Moreover, how we will be able to guarantee
the effectiveness of potencies if they are subjected to
the influence of electromagnetic fields, ever more common
in our environment, arising from the use of computers,
cell-phones and electric and electronic appliances?
Dynamizations pose so many doubts. We haven’t
yet solved many questions of the past that future possibilities
are already in front of our eyes: traditional
dynamizations, electronic dynamizations, all with their
possible ramifications. Dynamized remedies, used according
to the Law of Similars, are active and may be effective
in therapeutics, with several advantages over the
remedies of classical pharmacology. If Homeopathy is to
develop in the future, we need to find the answers for these
questions now.
Conclusions
Thorough research shows that univocally,
dynamized solutions may be used, according to the Law
of Similar, in the treatment of both individuals and populations,
extending their scope of action from human beings
to animals, and perhaps even to plants. In the present
article, we have reviewed several aspects concerning the
preparation of homeopathic remedies, in the hope that
practitioners will be enlightened. Many new ideas have
been summarized in order to awaken curiosity and interest,
as further clinical and pharmacological research
is needed. We hope to contribute to a better understanding
of the process as it ‘s basic for homeopathic professionals
in general.
Jeremy Collier, quoted by W W Robinson, stated:
We shouldn’t reject evident truths just because
we can’t answer all questions about them...
This evidently applies to a small group of
physicians that firmly maintains that there is
tremendous therapeutic power in the high
potencies. Lying in darkness, this idea is like a
slumbering giant, that needs to be awakened.”