by Matthew Wood
Although the reverse effect is no longer associated with homeopathy, it appears to me that the diminution of the dose prevents the homeopathic remedy from forcing the organism. This reduces the primary action, in which the organism can get stuck or addicted, so that it can more easily go through both primary and secondary reactions and back to original balance or homeostasis. It therefore appears that homeopathy is working according to the rebound effect modified by the reverse effect. By comparison, herbs don’t need to be reduced in concentration to produce the rebound effect because they are not very toxic and are therefore naturally normalizing between two poles of expression.
Herbs are natural, low-toxicity medicines that act according to what appears to be a universal law of healing—the rebound effect. In addition, they sometimes act through the regulatory effect because they contain small amounts of regulatory substances. They may also act through the vaccination-like reverse effect as demonstrated by the example of Mithridates.
Medical drugs, like addictive substances, force the body into the primary state and keep it there as long as the drug is taken. The symptoms produced in this way suppress some other undesirable symptom. This is a powerful way to influence the organism, almost as ingenious as it is crude. Hahnemann recognized that this approach is different from the principle of contraries (which he named “heteropathy”); he called it “allopathy,” meaning “(the cure) is alien (allo-) to the disease (-pathy).”
Herbs can also be used in this crude, material fashion to force the body to do something. Herbs, like drugs, can force changes in the body that have nothing to do with the rebound effect. They are, however, seldom strong enough to maintain a primary symptom for a prolonged time. If an herb is used to stimulate some function in the organism that the practitioner deems desirable, this can be an artificial “cure” and not really helpful to the organism (though seldom harmful).
An example of this would be the use of Echinacea spp. to boost white blood cell production: is this what the body really needs? An increase in WBC production might be completely unrelated to the processes going on in the body. In acute conditions, the grandmas and physicians of old used diaphoretics (sweat-inducers) to open the pores of the skin, which may have been a better approach to treating acute conditions. Thermoregulatory mechanisms are active all day and night, moderating changes in temperature and humidity through changes in blood flow and perspiration, long before the body initiates immune processes such as white-cell production. Influencing the circulation and diaphoresis may therefore be the natural, better way to right the primal wrong. Stimulating white-cell production might be better suited to deeper, more chronic assaults on the body, while unnecessary stimulation might weaken the organism.
This discussion has addressed how herbs do not act in an opposite way from homeopathic remedies and drugs. It appears almost certain, rather, that foods, nontoxic herbs, and poisons all operate on the body via the rebound effect—which is the basis of both sickness and healing.
However, the question of dosage remains. What is the upper limit, above which the herb becomes an overly forceful or toxic substance; and what is the lower limit, below which the herb ceases to produce any reaction in the body? The answer to this question I leave with each practitioner.
Other Differences Between the Sister Arts
Samuel Hahnemann (1755–1843), the founder of homeopathy, taught that it was impossible to know what is going on in the “hidden interior” of the organism. Therefore, he used symptoms as a basis for diagnosis and treatment, without connecting these symptoms to internal processes. Hahnemann’s dictum was that the symptoms alone should be used to determine treatment. But it should be evident that knowledge of simple functional pathophysiology helps to interpret and understand the sources of symptoms and how they fit together. Many symptoms, of course, are unexplainable. Symptoms are like the kosher laws—some have obvious significance; others are obvious due to later discoveries; another category may be obvious in the future; and some laws may never be explainable under any rational circumstances.
By comparison, in herbalism one does attempt to understand what is going on in the “hidden interior” of the organism. This is undertaken through the knowledge, as I have shown, of energetics or tissue states, organ affinities, actions, and specific indications. It may be difficult to know what is going on inside the organism, but it is not impossible. Hahnemann is correct in saying that therapeutic accuracy can be derailed by incorrect assumptions about internal processes, and he developed a method that made an end-run around this problem. That, however, does not mean that we need to use it all the time.
The major appeal of homeopathy is that it is based upon a universal law or fixed therapeutic principle, and upon symptoms that are precise and well recorded, having been produced in the healthy and applied to the sick with frequent verification. The disadvantages to homeopathy are (1) the dosages are often so counterintuitively small that it tends to be subjected to feverish opposition from bigots, and (2) the symptoms observed are removed from their physiological context. Homeopaths do not strive to establish the physiological context in which the symptoms were produced, and are therefore less able to interpret disease processes than other medical disciplines.
By comparison, herbs are mostly used empirically, that is to say, on the basis of experience, without reference to a doctrine like similars or contraries. However, herbs are usually prescribed according to the “law of contraries.” The stimulant warms the cold tissues, the astringent contracts the relaxed membranes, the laxative promotes peristalsis, etc. This usage is still in accord with the rebound effect, or primary and secondary symptoms, and therefore not in opposition to homeopathic principles.
Herbs are also used according to the “law of similars,” but here the reference is to the “doctrine of signatures”: the plant may look like a disease or organ, or grow in a place that resembles the disease. For instance, gravel root (Eupatorium purpureum), Hydrangea spp., and horsetail (Equisetum hyemale) grow by the stream’s edge, and are used for the kidneys. Gravel root also has a root system that looks like the capillaries, so it is considered good for stimulating capillary profusion. Herbs have been used empirically, according to the law of similars (especially the doctrine of signatures) and the law of contraries. To discard any one of these tools is to lose out on herbal heritage and power.
Toxic Plants
The area where there is sometimes clear conflict between homeopathy and herbal medicine is in the use of toxic plant medicines. The homeopaths and the eclectics often used remedies such as Aconitum, Atropa belladonna, Gelsemium, etc. in opposite fashions. Even here, if we understand the approaches, we see that both methods were skilled and health-promoting, though seemingly in conflict with each other.
Belladonna is used in both homeopathy and eclectic medicine to reduce inflammation accompanied by pounding, pulsating arteries. In biomedicine, it is still used in the form of atropine to relax the pupil of the eye. All three schools therefore use the plant to relax the neurovascular system, although the biomedical approach forces the body to react, while homeopathy and eclectic medicine encourage the body to complete its own process through a slight aggravation (displaying primary symptoms) followed by a cure (displaying secondary symptoms). The homeopathic and eclectic uses of Belladonna are therefore identical, but opposite to its biomedical use.
Gelsemium causes extreme muscle constriction followed by extreme prostration and relaxation. It is used in eclecticism to relax a tight muscle, while in homeopathy it is used for prostration, exhaustion, and excessive relaxation. Here the use is opposite: The eclectics focus on the primary symptoms, and the homeopaths on the secondary, but both are correct and valuable.
Sometimes the uses are not opposite but virtually unrelated: Staphysagria is used in homeopathy for psychological or physical violation, anger, and irritation of extremely sensitive tissues, while in herbalism it is used externally only (due to its toxicity) to kill head lice. That actually is a form of i
rritation, but is not exactly an opposite!
Bryonia was used by herbalists in Culpeper’s day, in small doses, as a purgative. In large doses, it is fearfully cathartic, draining the colon of water and causing a dry, irritable, inflamed state. In homeopathy, Bryonia is used for symptoms that are “worse from motion.” No explanation of this tissue condition is given, but it is due to the extreme evacuation of fluids and dryness it caused in the provings. Therefore the original herbal use and the homoeopathic uses are opposites, based on the rebound effect. The eclectics used Bryonia for severe heat and dryness, so they used it as the homeopaths did.
In homeopathy, Aconitum is used for fever following severe chill, overheating, or animal fear, while in herbalism (both Chinese and older Western traditions) aconite is used externally to deaden pain in cold, arthritic, aging joints, because it numbs the nerves. It is so poisonous that a small dose can kill. The antique medicine bottle I have says to dilute the contents at 1:3,000! In other words, homeopathy uses Aconitum to counter the severe chill and fever it would cause as a poison, while herbalism uses it to produce a mild, local inflammation that deadens (but does not kill) the painful nerves. These uses are opposite. How can we say that one is more appropriate than the other?
In order not to cause confusion, The Earthwise Herbal Repertory does not include eclectic or other usages based on toxic dosages. This book is intended for use of relatively nontoxic herbs in safe doses. I have included a few “active,” moderately toxic herbs traditionally used alongside the milder herbs, such as lobelia and kava-kava (Piper methysticum), but not Aconitum or other plants poisonous in large doses.
I have also included a few homeopathic remedies in the repertory, simply because they are so useful. Therefore, when the names Aconitum, Bryonia, Gelsemium, Staphysagria, etc., appear in the repertory, they refer to the homeopathic dilution. These are prepared on a scale of one to ten, or one to a hundred: 3x refers to a dilution of one part in ten to the third power (1:1,000), 6x to one part in ten to the sixth power (1:1,000,000), 3c to one part in a hundred to the third power (1:1,000,000), 6c to one part in a hundred to the sixth power (1:1,000,000,000,000), etc. The x method is used to make less diluted potencies, the c to make more diluted or “higher” potencies.
Homeopathic Remedies Listed in this Repertory
A small number of homeopathic remedies have been listed in this repertory, for several reasons. First, these are mostly vegetable “polycrests” (remedies with many uses) found in a homeopathic home-remedy kit and commonly used by laypeople as well as professional prescribers. Second, most of these remedies were used by the eclectic medical movement in the nineteenth century and are therefore an important part of our Western herbal heritage. Third, poisons can have virtues, as do nontoxic herbs and foods. Homeopathic remedies that are not toxic are listed as herbs (Hypericum, Sambucus, etc.) and can be used in large doses. Fourth, many of these homeopathic agents were listed by Michael Moore in his Herbal Repertory in Clinical Practice (1994), and I felt he established a precedent I was happy to follow. Fifth, I use most of these remedies myself in my own herbal practice.
Almost all of the homeopathic remedies are moderate to deadly poisons, and therefore only the homeopathic dosages (which are less than 0.1% of the mother tincture) are recommended, except in certain circumstances. The eclectic use of Gelsemium as an antispasmodic is too useful to discard, and therefore it has been preserved, but for external use only. Staphysagria is used as the mother tincture, but only on the hair, against lice. Here are the major homeopathic remedies I have included:
Aconitum napellus (Aconite)
Atropa belladonna (Belladonna)
Bryonia alba (White Bryony)
Delphinium staphisagria (Staphysagria, Stavesacre)
Gelsemium sempervirens (Gelsemium)
Rhus toxicodendron (Poison Ivy)
Veratrum viride (American hellebore)
A few other homeopathic remedies have also crept into the pages of this tome.
Conclusion
Both homeopathic and herbal remedies primarily act according to the rebound effect, which encompasses both similarity and contrarity. This repertory, therefore, can be used by both homeopaths and herbalists.
The Traditional Homeopathic Repertory
by David Ryan and Matthew Wood
Two-thirds of our Materia Medica are plants, so to really study homeopathy you should become an herbalist. You’ll know plants.
—ROBIN MURPHY, ND, HOMEOPATH
In 1827, a botanist and lawyer named Baron Clemons Maria Franz von Boenninghausen was dying of “consumption.” In a letter of farewell to a fellow member of his regional botanical society, he regretfully predicted the end of their friendship and correspondence. Unknown to Boenninghausen, his friend, Dr. Carl Weihe, was a dedicated and skillful practitioner of the “new system,” as homeopathy was often called at that time. The doctor asked Boenninghausen to tell him his symptoms, then sent back a homeopathic preparation of Pulsatilla, the windflower. The ailing baron was restored to full health in several months and, not surprisingly, began the earnest study and practice of the “new system.”
Samuel Hahnemann’s “new system” was based on the principle of “like treats like,” or the “law of similars.” The ancient form of this “law” was based on the doctrine of signatures—the medicine looks like the disease. However, Hahnemann’s concept was different, based on the idea that the substance causes the same symptoms in the healthy that it cures in the sick.
In order to develop homeopathy, Hahnemann invented a method called “drug proving”: a substance is given to a healthy person in a safe but symptom-provoking series of doses. The symptoms produced in this manner are used to guide the selection of a remedy for a sick person with the same symptoms. Through experience, Hahnemann found that diminishing the amount of the dose reduced the side effects. Eventually he reduced the dosage to “infinitesimal” levels—minute amounts in dilutions well beyond the point where any substance remained. This unlikely-sounding technique led to the primary criticism of homeopathy, then and now.
But practically, how were symptoms produced by provings linked to the sick? Remember that Hahnemann was groping in the dark at the start. He was inventing or discovering a “new system” that had never before been practiced. Both the provers and the sick had many symptoms. Hahnemann realized that some were more “characteristic” than others, and set the emphasis on these. A characteristic symptom is one that is typical of a remedy in many provers, patients, and diseases. The “characteristic” symptom often indicates one or a few remedies. An example would be “worse from motion,” the grand indication for Bryonia.
The next generation of homeopaths differentiated between a “characteristic” symptom and a “keynote.” The former could be composed of as little as one symptom (“worse from motion”) while the latter represents a more developed and unique complex of several symptoms. For example, the homeopathic remedy Belladonna is indicated for the simultaneous presence of heat and throbbing in the head. This is considered a keynote symptom because there is a complex of three indications: a sensation (throbbing), a second sensation (heat), and a location (head).
Modern research shows that Hahnemann experimented with many different options in his practice before settling on guidelines for his students. Once he had determined what he thought was appropriate, however, his opinion was usually dogmatic. His basic directives, given in his Organon of the Medical Art (1996), comprised the three fundamentals of homeopathic practice: (1) the remedy is applied by the law of similars (like treats like), producing the symptoms it has cured; (2) the remedy should match the totality of characteristic symptoms of the patient; and (3) the remedy should be given in the smallest dose capable of producing a curative response.
Over several decades, Hahnemann and his students generated drug provings for nearly a hundred remedies, many of which are still the bedrock of homeopathy today. His initial pharmacopeia was published under the name Materia Medica Pura.
The symptoms were “pure” in the sense that they were generated by provings alone. They were also unindexed, with only scant notes on the possible uses or general applications of the medicine.
After practicing his system for over two decades, Hahnemann came to the conclusion that there could be hidden, chronic illnesses lurking in the interior of the organism, encumbering the “vital force” of the patient so that they did not respond in a healthy manner to his well-selected remedies. Instead of concluding that he needed more remedies, Hahnemann felt he needed deeper-acting remedies.
At this point Hahnemann divided the materia medica, the symptomology, and the disease states into two classes: (1) acute, localized, or simple chronic diseases and their symptoms, generally suited to treatment by the remedies in Materia Medica Pura; and (2) chronic and genetic diseases and symptoms requiring deeper, chronically acting remedies that affect the whole complex to eliminate the “miasmatic taint.” This led to the publication of his second major homeopathic pharmacopeia, The Chronic Diseases. The majority of remedies in the first group were plants, while those in the second group were mostly of mineral and animal origin. It appears from this selection that Hahnemann conceived the plant remedies to have a less far-reaching action than the second group. This matter of the “difference between the kingdoms,” plant, mineral and animal, will be taken up below.
The release of Chronic Diseases caused a firestorm of controversy among Hahnemann’s followers. It was rightly pointed out that it completely contradicted his previous directives, which dogmatically emphasized prescription based on symptoms alone.
The fact that Hahnemann radically changed his directions for homeopathic practice in mid-career might warn us that we should not consider his dogmatic instructions to be the “only” or “true” basis of homeopathic practice. Furthermore, modern research shows that Hahnemann did not entirely adhere to his own guidelines. Rima Handley (1990) and David Little (2015) trace out the contours of Hahnemann’s actual practice late in life. Usually he would give a dose of Sulphur to ignite a cleansing metabolic fire and open the channels of elimination. He followed this with a course of remedies suited to the presenting symptoms. After decades of bedside experience, he had memorized two or three basic remedies for each common presentation.