THE FALLACIES OF HOMEOPATHY. 
Diseases, and whatever pertains to them, must be worthy 
of the attention of the public so long as all are liable to their 
ravages. Nothing of a material nature lies so near men's 
interests as those conditions which affect their health and life; 
and yet there is often an indifference to the subject, and a 
neglect to inquire into its details, which is quite surpris- 
ing. It is, however, gratifying to know that the amount of 
indifference and ignorance which has existed in the past is fast 
diminishing at the present. 
The action of our general Government in establishing a sani- 
tary commission, the appointment of numerous State boards of 
health, the holding of public sanitary conventions, the pro- 
duction of popular works on health, and the frequent references 
to the subject in our periodical literature, evince the change 
which is happily taking place. To the wonderful diffusion of 
scientific knowledge during the past few decades, is largely due 
the present intelligent interest in these subjects; and the recent 
assassination and long struggle for life of the President of the 
United States, and the illness of the late Prime Minister of 
England, with their accompanying circumstances, have brought 
before the minds of the masses of civilized people details which 
had not before received so general attention. 
The events of the illness of Lord Beaconsfield have brought 
to the notice of the public the so-called different systems of 
medicine, and especially the relations existing between those 
designated as regular physicians, and those who take the name 
of homeopathists. In this case, the refusal of a distinguished 
court physician to visit the patient while a reputed homeopathist 
was in attendance, notwithstanding the special request of the 
Queen; and the reluctant consent of another, only after the 
reputed homeopathist had denied his adherence to the homeo- 294 
THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW. 
pathic system, and had promised to follow all the directions • T 
the regular physician, became matters of public notoriety ai J 
comment, and various opinions as to the consistency and libe 
ality of the physicians concerned have been freely expressed. 
Many are unable to understand this great repugnance ard 
general refusal of regular physicians to sustain professional rel v- 
tions with homeopathists ; and, without informing themselves < >f 
the reasons of such feelings and conduct, regard them as illiberal 
and unreasonable. 
It is inconsistent with the laws of character and the springs of 
human action, that the great mass of modern scientific phy- 
sicians,-men whose education and training have tended to 
excite in them a love of truth and a desire for its attainment, 
the object of whose study has been to relieve suffering, and 
whose occupation has been so largely one of benevolence,- it 
is inconsistent with the general conduct of such men that the} 
should be unwilling to accept any doctrine, and use any mean1', 
which, in their judgment, will tend to the accomplishment o* 
their high purposes. They have shown a readiness, and even an 
eagerness, to entertain new ideas and accept new truths; and 
the great changes in opinions and practice, and the wondered 
advances in medical science in recent times, attest this fact. 
Truth has been readily embraced, from whatever source emanat- 
ing. Jenner received the facts of vaccination from dairymer ; 
many of the views of Priessnitz respecting the use of water have 
been accepted; a large number of new remedies brought into 
notice by the so-called Thompsonians and Eclectics have been 
investigated and adopted; anaesthesia was received from den- 
tists ; and new modes of preparing and administering medicines, 
both in much smaller and larger doses than those recommended 
by standard authors, are constantly put in practice. 
It would seem that there must be some special reason why 
the system of homeopathy is rejected with such contempt by 
scientific and discriminating men-by those who should be 
qualified to judge of its merits ; and why men so liberal in other 
cases should regard with such repugnance associations with 
homeopathists. This can be found only in the character of the 
system, which it is the object of this article to show. 
Although homeopathy has been before the world for three- 
quarters of a century, and has received in some circles a con- 
siderable share of patronage, very few outside of the medical THE FALLACIES OF HOMEOPATHY. 
295 
profession understand what it really is. To many who are intel- 
ligent and even learned in other matters, the whole subject of 
medicine is shrouded in darkness and mystery. An understand- 
ing of it, sufficient to form an intelligent opinion respecting its 
doctrines, requires attention to details which very few not of the 
profession ever bestow. 
It will not be possible within the limits of a magazine article 
to give a full view of homeopathy, in contrast with regular 
medicine, but it may be possible to present the leading tenets of 
the system as promulgated by its founder and authoritative ex- 
ponents, so that those who give attention to the matter may see 
reasons why its doctrines cannot be accepted, and why they are 
so intensely opposed by the regular profession. 
Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of this system, was born in 
Saxony, in 1775. He manifested early a facility for learning 
languages, and was afforded opportunities for study by which he 
became an assistant teacher in a grammar school, and afterward 
turned his attention in part to the study of medicine. These 
studies were pursued chiefly at Leipsic; but during his two and 
a half years' residence there, he is reported as having spent most 
of his time in translating books and giving lessons in German 
and Latin for his support. He was a few months in 
where he met with the visionary Mesmer, and is said by his biog- 
raphers to have been impressed with his and other transcen- 
dental notions, which much influenced his afterlife. He received 
his medical degree at Erlangen, when he was twenty-four years 
of age, after which he attempted to obtain practice in twenty- 
four different places in the course of. twenty-eight years, devot- 
ing much of his time, however, to chemistry, botany, and other 
subjects ; and for some months of this period he had charge of 
an insane asylum. After this career, during which, according 
to the statement of Dr. Dudgeon, editor of the "British Journal of 
Homeopathy," " he does not seem to have done much in the way 
of medical practice," in 1806, at the age of fifty-one, he published 
a pamphlet on the " Medicine of Experience," and followed this 
by bitter denunciations, in a popular journal, of ancient and 
modern medicine. This attracted attention, and secured him 
some practice; and in 1810, when he was fifty-five, he commenced, 
at Leipsic, to lecture on homeopathy. Not confining himself to 
the promulgation of his peculiar doctrines, he assailed those of 
others, and was so bitter in his invectives that his classes deserted 296 
THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW. 
him, and he ceased to lecture for want of hearers. He was, how- 
ever, more successful with his writings; and, removing to 
Coethen, he devoted himself to the publication of his doctrines 
and to the practice of his new method, which was chiefly in 
chronic cases and by mail-his patients writing to him their 
symptoms, for which he prescribed his medicines. His works 
became numerous, the most important being his " Organon," in 
which he expounds his principles, his "Materia Medica Pura," 
a voluminous work, and his " Chronic Diseases," in four volumes. 
This brief sketch of the founder of homeopathy will tend to 
explain the possibility of the existence of a system so marvelous 
as we shall find it. He has been exalted almost to a demi-god by 
his followers, but to others he seems to have been a restless, 
ambitious, vain, perambulating visionary, imbittered by his 
want of success, who gave vent to his bitterness against a pro- 
fession in which he had failed to obtain distinction or a com- 
petency. In his disappointment, his ambition and his vanity did 
not desert him. 
In the preface to the "Organon" he says: "The true art of 
healing remained undiscovered until my time"; and his claim to 
the discovery of an entirely new and essentially true system of 
medical practice has been maintained by his disciples. Homeop- 
athy, as an exclusive and complete system, was an invention of the 
" Sage of Coethen"; but long before his time, in the days of specu- 
lative philosophy, three general methods of cure had received a 
theoretical recognition, and one of them embraced the central 
dogma of the Hahnemannic system. These methods were the 
antipathic, the allopathic, and the homeopathic. As the names 
imply, the first indicated the application of remedies which pro- 
duce effects opposite to the disease; the second, effects different 
from, but not directly opposite to the disease; while the third 
indicated the use of remedies which produce effects like the dis- 
ease. Hahnemann adopted, or, as he claimed, discovered, as the 
universal or " sole law of cure in all diseases," the latter specula- 
tive idea. This doctrine is expressed in the oft-repeated form- 
ula of similia similibus curantur, and is the central article in 
the homeopathic creed. It, however, necessarily carries with it 
several other doctrines, constituting the system which it is the 
object of this paper briefly to examine. 
The articles of this creed may be arranged in the following 
order: THE FALLACIES OF HOMEOPATHY. 
297 
First. The principle of similia similibus curantur, as a uni- 
•» ersal law. 
Second. The prescribing medicines for symptoms alone. 
Third. Imponderable or infinitesimal doses. 
Fourth. The potentization of medicines, or the development 
of new and extraordinary powers within them, by rubbing and 
shaking. 
Fifth. The special mode of preparation by trituration with 
sugar of milk, or by shaking with alcohol or alcohol and water,, 
diluting on the centesimal scale. 
Sixth. The prescribing of a single simple medicine at a time. 
Seventh. The special method of "provings" by administering 
medicines to persons in health. 
Eighth. The mode of administering by placing pellets on the 
tongue, and by olfaction or smelling. 
Ninth. The psora or itch doctrine of the founder. 
It is not alleged that all these professed articles of belief are 
held by all homeopathists of the present day. Th )se, however, 
are the doctrines taught by Hahnemann and his consistent dis- 
ciples ; they are still more or less fully taught in their text-books 
and their schools; and if they do not constitute the homeopathic 
creed, if they do not include and represent the doctrines of 
homeopathy, then it is impossible to determine what that creed 
is, and what the doctrines of that system are. That they are the 
real homeopathic doctrines we shall show; we shall endeavor to 
point out their import; and it will be seen how impossible it is to 
accept them, or for scientific physicians to have professional rela- 
tions with those who profess to believe and be governed by 
them. 
As to the central doctrine of "like curing like" as a universal 
and exclusive principle, Hahnemann is very explicit, and his asser- 
tions cannot be misunderstood. In the "Organon," he says: 
"In every case, a medicine"must be given "which can itself pro- 
duce an affection similar to that sought to be cured. The truth 
is only to be found in this method." "It is not possible," he 
continues, "to perform a cure but by the aid of a remedy which 
produces symptoms similar to those of the disease itself." Again, 
"it is the only therapeutical law conformable to nature." 
Dr. Scott, a leading English homeopathist, says: " The 
essential characteristic of the homeopathic school is singly and 
simply the adoption of a law of treatment applicable to all forms 298 
THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW. 
of disease, expressed by the words similia similibus curantur." 
Further quotations from authoritative homeopathic writers to 
the same effect could be made indefinitely, but these are deemed 
sufficient to show that this is an essential article in the creed. 
To abandon this would be to surrender the system, and to prove 
this untrue would be to show the system to be false. 
It is always difficult to prove a negative by direct argument, 
however absurd the positive proposition may be. It would not 
be easy to formulate an argument against the assumption of 
Bishop Berkeley that tar-water was a universal remedy, or against 
the claims made for Perkins's tractors that they would draw all 
diseases from the body, or to prove demonstratively that the 
many a sure and only cures " which are advertised for various 
diseases will not fulfill the promises made for them. The 
burthen of proof is with those who make the assertions, and 
much testimony from respectable persons can usually be found 
for such pretensions; but when such allegations and spurious 
proofs fail to convince those who understand the subject and have 
had full opportunities of judging, the proposition may be safely 
rejected as untenable. That the dogma we are examining has 
failed to receive the assent of the great mass of scientific phy- 
sicians the world over, is unquestioned. 
But more positive proof than this is afforded. It is too 
generally and positively known to be questioned, that iodine 
cures the goitre, quinine the ague, and sulphur the itch, while 
no conditions like these diseases are produced by these respective 
remedies. If these facts be admitted, and there are many others 
of the same kind, then it is certain that similia similibus curantur 
is not the " only law of cure." 
But it is declared, and with what force of truth we shall see, 
that it is no law of cure at all; or, at the very least, that it is not 
of sufficient applicability to make it commonly available in prac- 
tice. The simple fact is that medicines, when they are curative, 
produce an effect different from the disease; and whatever 
resemblance may be imagined, or may really exist, between the 
effects of a remedy and the phenomena of the disease it modifies, 
the cure, if a cure is produced, is accomplished by the difference 
and not by the similarity which exists between the effects of the 
remedy and the disease. No one has defined the degree of simi- 
larity between the remedy and the disease necessary for the 
operation of the alleged law. In similarity there is a differ- THE FALLACIES OF HOMEOPATHY. 
299 
ence, and it is too evident to require further statement that by 
the difference the cure is effected. 
This truth is so apparent, that the more thoughtful modern 
members of the homeopathic sect admit that homeopathy is a 
misnomer, and that medicines produce their curative effects by 
causing actions contrary to the diseases for which they are 
given. Three leading homeopathists in London have recently 
made these admissions in the 11 Lancet." This certainly seems to 
be yielding the whole question; but still these men claim that 
medicines are selected on the principle of similarity of effects, 
though they cure on the principle of opposition. But the alleged 
essential law is that like cures like. The claim of only selecting 
medicines from the similarity of their effects to the symptoms 
of the disease is the last stand of those who have been driven by 
logical necessity from one position to another; and this claim 
must be maintained unless every particle of pretense to homeop- 
athy is given up. A system resting on so narrow a basis must 
topple to the ground-has, it is believed, already fallen. This 
conviction is confirmed by the fact, now so notorious, that in 
the practice of nearly all homeopathists the rule of similars is 
not observed in the selection of remedies. But we have here to 
do with the system as promulgated by its author and his real 
followers, rather than with the practices of those who retain a 
nominal position in a medical sect. 
Associated with the dogma of like curing like is the principle 
of prescribing for symptoms alone,-of giving medicines which 
will produce symptoms like those of the disease, without regard 
to causes, or to the more hidden changes, learned from the study 
of morbid anatomy and the nature of pathological processes. 
Hahnemann, in the " Organon," says: " Only that which is neces- 
sary for the physician to know of disease, and which is fully 
sufficient for the purpose of cure, is rendered evident to his 
senses." " In short, the ensemble of the symptoms is the prin- 
cipal and sole object that a physician ought to have in view in 
every case of disease." 
The character of other homeopathic writings is in accordance 
with this view. Thus, in Jahr's Manual, a standard homeopathic 
text-book, are found such directions as these: " For absence of 
mind, irresoluteness-the remedy, alum." "Absence of mind 
with confusion of thought,-cupr." " Making mistakes in writ- 
ing,-nat. carb." "Fear of death,-dig." " Pain in the big toe, THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW. 
300 
as if sprained,-mosch.," etc. Mere symptoms, some the most 
trivial, have remedies set opposite to them which are supposed 
to be capable of producing similar phenomena. 
In prescribing medicines for symptoms on the principle that 
" like cures like,"-in giving opium for stupor, irritants for an 
acutely inflamed stomach, an article that will produce a pain for 
the cure of a similar pain, i. e., in ordinary doses, it was found that 
the symptoms were increased instead of being relieved ; and this 
difficulty was met by diminishing the dose. Small doses neces- 
sarily followed the dogma of similars. 
Says Hahnemann: "The suitableness of a medicine in any 
given case of disease does not depend on its accurate homeo- 
pathic selection alone, but on the size, or rather smallness, of the 
dose. A medicine of a positive and curative kind will, without 
fault in itself, produce just the contrary effect of that which it 
ought to do, if given in excessive quantity, by producing a 
greater disease than that present." 
Commencing with small but sensible doses, he proceeded to 
the minute and insensible ones, and declared that the " minutest 
doses are always able to overcome the disease." "The very 
smallest, I repeat; for it holds good, and will continue to hold 
good, as a homeopathic therapeutic maxim, not to be refuted by 
any experience in the world, that the best dose of the properly 
selected remedy is always the very smallest one, in one of the 
high dynamizations (X or thirtieth dilution), as well for chronic 
as acute diseases-a truth that is the inestimable property of pure 
homeopathy," and which, he adds, in regard to allopathy and 
mongrel systems, " will keep pure homeopathy separated from 
these spurious arts as by an impassable gulf." 
The extent to which dilutions or attenuations are carried can 
only be understood by a description of the mode of preparing 
the medicines, and this can best be given in Hahnemann's own 
words. Particular attention must be given to these descriptions 
for a proper understanding of this part of the subject. 
In Hahnemann's " Organon " is this statement: 
"If two drops of a mixture of equal parts of alcohol and the recent juice 
of any medicinal plant be diluted with ninety-eight drops of alcohol in a vial 
capable of containing one hundred and thirty drops (for the convenience of 
shaking), and the whole be twice shaken together, the medicine becomes 
exalted in energy to the first development of power, or, as it may be denomi- 
nated, the first potence. The process is to be continued through twenty-nine THE FALLACIES OF HOMEOPATHY. 
301 
additional vials, each of equal capacity with the first, and each containing 
ninety-nine drops of alcohol, so that every successive vial after the first, being 
furnished with one drop from the vial or dilution immediately preceding 
(which has just been twice shaken), is, in its turn, to be shaken twice, 
remembering to number the dilution of each vial upon the cork as the opera- 
tion proceeds. These manipulations are to be conducted through all the 
vials, from the first up to the thirtieth or decillionth development of power, 
which is the one in most general use." 
With regard to solids, he adds : 
" These were, in the first place, exalted in energy by attenuation in the 
form of powder by means of trituration in a mortar (in sugar), to the third, or 
millionth degree. Of this one grain was then dissolved and brought through 
twenty-seven vials by a process similar to that employed in the case of vege- 
table juices, up to the thirtieth development of power." 
Directions as to the mode of administering are next given: 
" The best mode of administration is to make use of small globules of 
sugar the size of mustard-seed; one of these globules, having imbibed the 
medicine and being introduced into a vehicle, forms a dose containing about 
a three-hundredth part of a drop of the dilution, for three hundred of such 
globules will imbibe one drop of alcohol; by placing one of these on the 
tongue, and not drinking anything after it." * * * 
And then he adds : 
" But if the patient be very sensitive, and it is necessary to employ the 
smallest dose possible, and attain at the same time the most speedy results, 
it will be sufficient to let him smell once." 
Ran, in his " Organon," gives substantially the same direc- 
tions ; and Hempel, one of the most recent homeopathic 
writers, says: "In order to obtain good homeopathic prepara- 
tions, follow Hahnemann's rules as closely as may be possible 
and convenient." The essential matters of the dilutions on the 
centesimal scale, he evidently means to say, must be followed 
strictly, and the particular mode of triturations and shaking 
should be followed as closely as possible and convenient. 
It is hoped the patience of the reader who wishes to know 
what the doctrines and professed practice of Hahnemannic 
homeopathists really are, will not be too severely taxed by an 
attempt to give a conception of what these statements mean, and 
of the extent of these dilutions. A statement of the following 
conclusions, without giving the language of the authors on 
which they are based, would seriously tax one's credulity. 
VOL. CXXXIV.-NO. 304. THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW. 
302 
In the first dilution of one grain of the medicine with ninety - 
nine of sugar or alcohol, one grain of the mixture contains j-J-,- 
of a grain of the crude medicine. One grain or drop of the first. 
added to the next vial, forms the second dilution: a grain os- 
drop of this will contain t|q part of t|q, which is jo.oto- Part ol 
a grain. The third dilution contains t part of the second, and 
one grain of that contains t.oto.oto P °f a of H16 
medicine. The fourth contains part of the third, which 
would be too.oIo.oto. The to.oto.Iot.oto, and 80 on UP 
to the thirtieth. The series diminishes in this rapid ratio, the 
denominator of the fraction representing each succeeding dilu- 
tion being multiplied by 100, and each one all the way through 
being 100 times less than the one just preceding; so that at the 
thirtieth dilution, a unit with sixty ciphers for a denominator 
and a unit for the numerator expresses the quantity of medi- 
cine, or the part of a grain, which at that dilution is contained 
in a drop. This is the fraction : 
i 
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. 
A drop of alcohol containing this part of a grain is to moisten 
three hundred sugar globules. The alcohol evaporates, leaving 
that fraction of a grain in the globules, and one of these globules 
is the dose! 
The quantity of liquid required to dilute the whole of a single 
grain to the thirtieth degree may be arrived at mathematically 
by taking another view from the same data presented in the lan- 
guage of Hahnemann and Rau. 
When using the medicine at the thirtieth dilution, all the 
intermediate vials are discarded. If all, however, were used and 
brought to this dilution; if none were discarded, and the whole 
ultimately elaborated,-a thing impossible except in theory,- 
it would be as follows : 
For the first dilution, 100 drops of - alcohol would be used. 
For the second, 100 times as many, which would be 10,000 drops, 
or, as ascertained, about one pint. For the third, 100 pints. 
The fourth, 10,000. And now the quantity mounts up rapidly at 
each dilution. For the ninth dilution, it would require twelve 
trillions five hundred billions (12,500,000,000,000) of gallons, 
which is found by computation to be equal to the water 
in a lake many miles in circumference. For three dilutions 
more, the twelfth, it requires a million of such lakes, which, ZHL' FALLACIES OF HOMEOPATHY. 
303 
according to computation, would be equal to at least five hundred 
lakes as large as Lake Superior. The fifteenth dilution would 
require a body of fluid sixty-one times greater than this earth, 
and the thirtieth would actually take a quantity of fluid exceed- 
ing the volume of a quadrillion of suns. 
Various calculations have been made by different writers 
with the view of giving as definite notions as possible of these 
infinitesimal doses, but they only approximate to the actual fact. 
The dilutions are divided by Dr. Hempel into four classes, 
viz.: 
First. Lower-up to the 6th attenuation. 
Second. Middle-from the 6th to the 30th. 
Third. Higher-from the 30th to the 200th. 
Fourth. Highest-above the 200th. 
These highest go up to the 40,000th. 
Dr. Simpson (Sir James), of Edinburgh, has shown by his 
calculations, confirmed by the mathematical professors of the 
University of Edinburgh, that at the fifteenth dilution, a mass 
of sugar or body of water would be required out of which sixty- 
one bodies could be made, each as large as our earth. The 
sixteenth would require one hundred times as many-i. e., 
61 x 100=6,100. Multiplying each time by one hundred, from the 
fifteenth to the thirtieth, fifteen times, would make thirty ciphers 
joined to the sixty-one,-making a bulk 61,000,000,000,000,000,- 
000,000,000,000,000 times as large as the earth. In commenting 
upon these facts, Sir James Simpson writes: 
" Surely, common sense and common sanity both dictate to the human 
mind that it is utterly impossible that any sueh dose from any such an incon- 
ceivable ocean, medicated by a single grain of any drug dissolved and mixed 
in it, can have any possible effect upon the human body, either in health or 
disease. We can but conclude with Dr. Forbes, that in rejecting homeopathy 
' we are discarding what is at once false and bad - useless to the suffering 
and degrading to the physician.'" 
That these are the actual teachings of homeopathy, however 
incredible it may seem, every one who has given attention to the 
subject knows; and the repugnance which is felt by those 
acquainted with the fact cannot be difficult to understand. 
To avoid the utterly repelling absurdity of believing these 
infinitesimal quantities of common matter capable of producing 
medicinal effects, Hahnemann was driven to the next named doc- 
trine, that of potentization, or the communication of a new 304 
THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW. 
dynamic or spiritual power by the triturations and shakings 
used in the preparation of the dilutions. The medicines were 
declared to be increased in power by these processes; and the 
more they were divided and rubbed or shaken, the more of this new 
power was said to be communicated. In Hahnemann's words, " a 
great, hitherto unknown, undreamt-of change occurred in them." 
He was particular in directing that only two shakes be given to 
each dilution, lest the power should be developed to an excessive 
extent, and the potency become unmanageable. It is thought 
these notions were suggested by the claims of Mesmer, of having 
the ability to communicate extraordinary powers to dead matter. 
Our space does not allow extended quotations on this subject of 
potentizations, notwithstanding its importance to the homeo- 
pathic system. One other of Hahnemann's statements, however, 
showing " a method in his madness "-making an exception for 
a purpose-may be given. In his dilutions and shakings, alcohol 
was used as a vehicle, and this substance he admitted to have 
medicinal properties; but he declared it was an exception to all 
others in its relations to potentization. His words are, " Wine 
and alcohol are the only excitants the heating and intoxicating 
effects of which are diminished by their dilution with water." 
All must see that unless some quality is added or developed 
by the process of preparation, such articles as carbon, common 
salt, carbonate of lime, sulphur, flint, etc.-articles existing in 
our food, and constituting essential elements of our bodies-can- 
not have the wonderful effects which the system ascribes to them. 
In Jahr's "Materia Medica," over four hundred and fifty symp- 
toms are said to be produced, and consequently are capable of 
being cured, by common salt in the twentieth and thirtieth dilu- 
tions ; and in our present time, this article, under the name of 
nat. mur., is seriously advised at the thirtieth dilution by 
professors in a homeopathic college as a remedy for ague. 
Nearly the same number of symptoms and cures as by table-salt 
are attributed to dilutions of charcoal, chalk, and other sub- 
stances which in ordinary quantities are inert. 
The common mode of administering the medicines is in medi- 
cated sugar globules placed upon the tongue; but Hahnemann 
declares that "all that homeopathy is at all capable of curing 
. . . will be most safely and certainly cured by the mode of 
olfaction." He adds: "A pellet retains for this purpose all its 
powers for at least eighteen or twenty years (my experience THE FALLACIES OF HOMEOPATHY. 
305 
extends this length of time), though the phial be opened a thou- 
sand times during that period, if it be but protected from heat 
and the sun's light." 
As to the administering a single medicine at a time, Hahne- 
mann says: "In no case is it requisite to administer more than 
one single simple medicinal substance at one time. The true phy- 
sician never thinks of giving of a remedy but a single simple 
medicinal substance." He, however, prescribed opium, which 
contains at least seven distinct crystalline substances, differing 
in their individual action; and Peruvian bark, also very often 
given, contains several distinct active principles. 
To describe and illustrate the system of homeopathic " prov- 
ings " would extend this article beyond its assigned limits. It 
must suffice to say that these provings are conducted by the 
administration of both crude or sensible and infinitesimal doses; 
and symptoms the most incongruous, contradictory, and often 
trivial are attributed to the effects of the most extreme dilutions 
of comparatively inert substances. 
Various other minor doctrines were taught by Hahnemann, 
and are accepted by his disciples, but they cannot here be 
discussed. 
The leading doctrines of the school have been presented in 
the language of its founder and its recognized exponents, and 
their statement seems a sufficient refutation. We have found 
homeopathy a definite system of positive dogmas, having various 
parts dependent upon each other. The leading doctrine of 
similia similibus curantur necessitates the doctrine of small 
doses,-so small, that at least their ordinary effects are imper- 
ceptible. This has led to the extreme dilutions; and this in 
turn to the doctrine of potentization. The assumption that 
medicines cure the conditions in the sick which they are capable 
of imitating in the well, led to the method of "provings." 
Further, this doctrine of similars is followed by the doctrine of 
the specific action of medicines,-that is, that certain medicinal 
articles have definite affinities with certain diseases. This view 
includes the ancient and exploded notion that diseases are dis- 
tinct entities, or things by themselves, having a lodgment in 
the body. The homeopathic writers seem to regard diseases 
as material substances, having such qualities as attraction for 
particular remedies or correspondences with certain principles 
in medicines. Dr. Hempel, the modern author before referred 306 
THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW. 
to, says: " Hahnemann taught the doctrine " (which Hempel 
indorses) '1 that it is the drug-force which effects cures. By 
drug-force we mean the morbid essence which materializes itself 
in the plant, and develops pathological lesions in the organism." 
As an example and illustration of the doctrine, he says : " Here 
is the stramonium-disease, the creative stramonium-force having 
invaded the organism where it meets a kindred recipient faculty. 
We act upon it by means of material molecules, for which the 
stramonium-force or essence has a stronger attractive affinity 
than for the organic tissues. If the drug molecules are not 
endowed with sufficient force to draw the disease to themselves, 
. . . the cure fails." 
Now, all these assumptions and theories-not only the absurd 
theories themselves, but the practice of thus theorizing-are 
directly opposed to the whole spirit of modern science. In the 
darkness of the past, diseases were regarded as evil spirits 
to be exorcised, or driven out by some opposing or attracting 
influences; and these " relics of barbarism " seem to linger in 
some minds, as is shown in the above quotation. 
Science has determined that diseases are phenomenal-are 
deviations from normal activities and normal compositions and 
structures in the organism. These wrong actions depend, to 
be sure, on disturbing agencies, some of which are material 
poisons, but others are injurious impressions from excesses or 
deficiencies, or other perversions of the conditions of life; but 
the diseases themselves are wrong actions or perverted physio- 
logical phenomena. The present established philosophy of disease 
is such that the advocacy, or even the discussion and com- 
parison, of general systems of medicine, such as antipathy, allo- 
pathy, or homeopathy, are entirely out of place in our time, and 
belong to the past age of dreamy speculation, and not to the 
present of inductive science. Instead of diseases being considered 
as mysterious entities, to be dealt with on some theoretical exclu- 
sive plans, they are known to be aggregates of phenomena, to be 
modified by various agencies adapted to each case, but acting on 
no exclusive principle. Regular physicians profess no exclusive 
system. They repudiate the designation of allopathists; and 
they look upon the work of removing wrong conditions and 
actions in the animal organism as scientific mechanicians do upon 
remedying the defects in a complex piece of mechanism. The 
intelligent mechanic would inquire into the conditions and causes THE FALLACIES OF HOMEOPATHY. 
307 
of the wrong actions, and proceed on scientific and common-sense 
principles to remove them. It would be very absurd to announce 
some exclusive principle of similiasimilibus curantur for correcting 
defective or wrong-going watches or engines; and it is equally so 
to announce such a principle as alone applicable to the removal 
of wrong conditions and actions in the living mechanism. The 
analogy in this respect is perfect between the engine and the 
man ; the difference is in the greater complexity-the existence 
of a larger number of elements in the living human organism. 
The limits of this article will not allow of a reply to all of the 
attempted arguments by which the pretensions of homeopathy 
have been sought to be sustained. Some of them, however, re- 
quire a brief notice. One, the most plausible, and which has done 
much service, is based on the apparent analogy between the pre- 
ventive influence of the vaccine disease over small-pox, and the 
alleged curative influence of medicines similar in their effects to 
the phenomena of disease. The minuteness of the quantity of 
infectious matter sufficient to produce disease has also been ad- 
duced to give plausibility to the notion that very minute quan- 
tities of medicines can produce effects. Attention to the facts 
concerned will show the fallacy of these arguments. It is well 
known that small-pox and a few other contagious diseases 
usually occur but once in the same person, and in the case 
of small-pox, the induction of the disease in a milder form pre- 
vents its repetition. Inoculation with its own virus produces 
a modified form of the affection of less severity. The vaccine 
virus, which is that of small-pox rendered much more mild by 
passing through the body of the cow, has the effect to produce a 
still milder form of the disease, but one which usually prevents 
a second occurrence. The operation of so small a quantity of the 
virus is accounted for by the fact that it is living and germinating, 
and during the period of its incubation in the system it largely 
multiplies, and considerable time elapses before its effects are 
realized. Vaccination is preventive, not curative, and is from iden- 
tity, and not similarity. Scarlatina, which is similar to measles, 
will not prevent the recurrence of the latter, though an attack 
of either of these diseases will prevent a second one of the same 
affection. An attack of malarial fever will not prevent one of 
cholera or diphtheria; and an occurrence of either of these last- 
named diseases has no preventive influence over a second one. 
Medicines are not living matters, are incapable of multiplication, 308 
THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW. 
and require no period of incubation to produce their effects. 
Their operation once does not prevent their action again upon 
the same system; and when they do good they are curative, 
not preventive. It will thus be seen that the apparent analogy 
between their effects and the action of vaccination does not exist, 
and the arguments based upon it completely fail. 
An argument in favor of the claims of homeopathy is based 
upon its having obtained the support of numbers of people. The 
adherence of numbers to a system, a faith, or a cause, is not an 
evidence of its truth or justice, especially when it contains 
elements of mystery, and does not admit of the test of direct 
demonstrative proof. Brahmanism, Mohammedanism, and in our 
own time and civilization, Spiritualism and Mormonism, have 
many adherents, but the truth of none of these is established. 
If, however, numerical adherence be the test of truth, it does not 
lie with homeopathy. The system has urged its claims for the 
last eighty years, and up to the present time, three generations 
of medical men have come and gone, while not one educat'd 
physician out of one hundred the world over has expressed views 
favorable to the dogmas we have been discussing. On the con- 
trary, the great body of scientific medical men everywhere - 
almost all those of acknowledged prominence in the world of 
science-have denounced the Hahnemann system as the most 
arrant nonsense. The people who support it are certainly for the 
most part ignorant of the real character of the system. There is 
in many persons a tendency to put an undue value upon the 
mysterious and the unknown. Had the well-understood English 
word like-cure been applied to the system in place of the less 
understood Greek word homeopathy, its attractiveness would 
have been much less. Homeopathy has no position in the world 
of science. In the country of its origin, the great body of those 
best qualified to judge speak of the system of doctrines as a 
dream that is past, and of its practice as charlatanism and 
deception. Its professed adherents are not admitted to any 
professional associations. A leading German journal says: 
" The homeopathy of to-day is no science, not even a dogma- 
just a trade." 
The efficacy of homeopathic medicines prepared and adminis- 
tered in the manner described, cannot be sustained on any 
rational principle. Those who have given intelligent attention to 
the subject must, and do, admit this. Those who really believe THE FALLACIES OF HOMEOPATHY. 
309 
in homeopathy do so on the evidence of the statements of others, 
or from the supposed effects which have been observed in the 
treatment of cases of disease. 
The fallacies of medical experience are well known to all 
thoughtful physicians. Among the most obvious fallacies are 
errors as to the actual medicines taken. It is well known that 
very many, not to say nearly all, professed homeopathic practi- 
ioners often give medicines in sensible, and even in large doses, 
and not upon their professed exclusive principle. Thus, the real 
relief afforded and cures effected may not have been due to the 
homeopathic remedies. 
But there are other fallacies perhaps more common than this. 
When a medicine is taken with the view of producing a certain 
'ffect, such as the relief of a symptom, and that relief follows, it 
■ s most natural that the patient and the prescriber should attrib- 
ute the result to the medicine taken. As symptoms very often 
disappear spontaneously, or are removed by a variety of influences 
which may be overlooked, it is evident that the disappearance of 
a symptom after a medicine is taken does not prove the relation 
of cause and effect between the events. 
The evidence that is required to prove or disprove a proposi- 
tion in therapeutics is of a peculiar kind. " It differs entirely 
from that species of proof which satisfies a court of law." The 
statement that a certain disease within one's observation or 
experience was cured by a certain remedy, would by many be 
regarded as the statement of a single fact, to be accepted accord- 
ing to the credibility of the witness; whereas, it is the expression 
of several opinions, either of which, however sincerely enter- 
tained, may be erroneous. The patient may not have had the 
j-upposed disease; he may not have taken the alleged remedy; 
the disease, if real, may not have been removed-may still con- 
tinue ; but if the disease existed as stated, the supposed remedy 
was given, and the disease disappeared, the recovery may not 
have been due to the remedy. 
Certificates, sincerely made, of cures of cancers, of advanced 
consumptions, and of numerous other diseases, by nostrums 
which no physician of any school could believe efficacious, are 
illustrations of such errors. 
An experience of the late Professor Chomel, of Paris, is 
related, which so aptly illustrates fallacious conclusions from 
inexact observations that it may be quoted: 310 
THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW. 
u The common holly having been much praised as a remedy for ague, he 
determined to test it in the Hospital La Charite. Twenty-two eases of the 
disease were directed to him. After their admission, he purposely abstained 
from all treatment for several days, in order to see that they were well- 
marked cases. He found that of the twenty-two, seven never had another 
paroxysm, four had paroxysms of decreasing severity, eight had nothing but 
symptomatic paroxysms, connected with slight inflammation of the mucous 
membranes, which yielded to simple treatment; three only were fit subjects 
for experiments, i. e., had essential intermittent fever, preserving all its 
intensity for three or four paroxysms. The remedy (holly) was given to these, 
but entirely failed in all of them. Quinine was then given in the ordinary 
way, and the paroxysms were immediately stopped. If, from the day of 
admission, the remedy had been given to the whole, the conclusion would 
have been that it had cured nineteen out of twenty-two ; and the three cases 
-the only ones proper to test the remedy-would have been regarded as 
exceptional." 
In estimating the value of all experience in medicine, it must 
be remembered that a large proportion of ordinary diseases are 
self-limited, that most sick persons will recover without medi- 
cine, and that proper nursing and confidence in those in attend- 
ance will contribute to the result. The individual judgment, 
even of the intelligent and judicious, may readily be misled; 
and the popular judgment may be carried away by the exag- 
gerated statements of the interested and the enthusiastic. All 
the earlier reported remarkable successes of homeopathic treat- 
ment of severe diseases were with theHahnemannic infinitesimals; 
and of the correctness of such reports, after knowing what these 
dilutions are, the reader will judge. Scientifically conducted 
experiments with homeopathic dilutions were long ago made by 
Andral in the hospitals of Paris, and by other eminent regular 
physicians, and always with negative results. Some patients 
doubtless improved while these medicines were being adminis- 
tered, but not in consequence of their administration, in the 
opinion of those best qualified to judge. Indeed, a majority of 
leading homeopathists now deny the efficacy of imponderable 
doses, though the schools and text-books teach their use, and most 
of the homeopathists, though resorting to other remedies, still give 
the sugar pellets. Some very recent experiments, conducted by 
members of the homeopathic fraternity in the West, for the pur- 
pose of testing the ability to distinguish by their effects between 
unmedicated and medicated globules, are authentically reported 
to have resulted in a failure. 
As already intimated, there is not a tenet, as presented by the 
founder of the system, which has not been rejected by numbers THE FALLACIES OF HOMEOPATHY. 
311 
who are regarded as of high authority in the homeopathic fra- 
ternity. The denial of the efficacy of the higher dilutions is an 
admission that all the wonderful reported success in the past of 
Hahnemann and his followers was deceptive. Their treatment 
and provings were with dilutions and alleged a potencies." 
The only scientific fact which gives any show of plausibility 
to the doctrine of similia similibus curantur, as even a subordi- 
nate law of cure, is, that some medicines appear to have in small 
doses an effect opposite to what they manifest in large doses. The 
most conspicuous of such remedies is ipecacuanha, which in large 
doses produces vomiting, and in small ones sometimes allays that 
symptom. This occasional opposition of large and small doses 
is a fact for which the profession is not indebted to homeopathy. 
All that is known on the subject is the property of the regular 
profession. It is not, however, a universal or even a general 
fact, and is not of sufficient frequency and regularity to be gen- 
erally available in practice. Whenever thought applicable, the 
principle is resorted to by regular physicians, and with perfect 
consistency, as they have no system of dogmas which confines 
them to any restricted practice, or which prevents them from 
prescribing any remedies in any doses found, or believed to be, 
useful. A belief in the frequent application of this principle, and 
practice in accordance with that belief, even to what would be 
generally thought a very erroneous extent, would not deprive 
one of recognition by the regular profession. Great liberty of 
opinion and action in the choice of remedies within the bounds 
of common sense and common sanity, has ever been allowed. 
The adhesion to an absurd exclusive system, and the banding in 
a sect which denounces and seeks to destroy confidence in regular 
medicine is that which cannot be tolerated. 
A few physicians of prominence in England have recently 
suggested the propriety of meeting members of this sect in con- 
sultation, notwithstanding the acknowledged utter absurdity of 
their professed views and practices, and their well-known denun- 
ciations of regular medicine. These suggestions, it is predicted, 
will not meet with acceptance from the profession, for reasons 
which must be obvious to those who have followed the preceding 
statements respecting the homeopathic doctrines. 
The object of medical consultations is to benefit the patient - 
to secure for him by exchange of opinions and by mutual agree- 
ment the best course of treatment. It is too evident to require 
to be stated that there can be no agreement between a regular 312 
THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW. 
physician having any established professional views and a sincere 
homeopathist. No benefit can arise to the patient from the 
practical disagreement which would be inevitable. The con- 
scientious believer in the universal principle of similia similibus 
could not consent to the use of any remedy not selected in 
accordance with that law. One believing in the efficacy of 
infinitesimals and in the injurious effects of medicines in crude 
forms and sensible doses, could not consent with any regard 
to the supposed interests of his patient to the administration 
of the larger doses. If, for the purpose of securing patron- 
age, the homeopathist pretends to a superior system in which he 
does not believe, and to a better practice which he does not 
follow, he is a charlatan and a pretender, unworthy of confidence 
or honorable associations. If a regular physician, for the sake 
of a consultation fee, or for the purpose of obtaining popular 
favor, sacrifices his convictions, relinquishes measures in which 
he has confidence and consents to a practice he is sure is useless, 
he may be a fitting person for such consultations, but he is not 
an honorable member of an honorable profession. If between 
an honest homeopathist and an equally honest regular physician 
there can be no agreement and cooperation in the treatment of a 
case, consultations between such are certainly useless; and no 
opinions need be expressed respecting consultations between 
parties one or both of whom are insincere. Should the homeop- 
athist abandon his system or the regular physician embrace it, 
then there may be harmony and agreement; but until then con- 
sistency and honor no less than proper professional feeling will 
forbid the unnatural alliance. 
The honest and honorable man who has been educated in the 
homeopathic doctrines and has been brought into the homeo- 
pathic fraternity, but who has become convinced of the essential 
error of the system, will openly abandon it - will no longer 
march in its ranks or be called by its name. One who rejects 
the homeopathic creed and is unwilling to occupy a false posi- 
tion will follow the example which some well-known and honored 
men now in the ranks of the regular profession have set; and by 
declaring his position and leaving his former associations, will 
obtain recognition and a position which his talents and character 
will earn for him. 
These are the views which most men will take. None are 
more positive in their declarations against the unnatural alii- THE FALLACIES OF HOMEOPATHY. 
313 
ance than the leading authorities among the homeopathists 
themselves. Dr. Ran, in his " Organon/' says: " The principle 
of similia similibus is the barrier which separates the new from 
the old school. It is impossible to combine these two schools; 
any such combination would constitute a most miserable abor- 
tion." And Hahnemann had the sanity and the sense to say that 
homeopathy would ever be separated from what he calls allo- 
pathy "by an impassable gulf." Any attempt to permanently 
bridge the chasm over, even by a Bristowe or a Hutchinson, 
must result in failure. 
In this article no attempt has been made to specify the 
achievements of the regular profession, or to either defend or crit- 
icise its doctrines or practice. It would be an easy task to point 
out its present scientific methods and the great results they have 
accomplished. It would also be easy to refer to differences of 
opinions and contradictions of statements on various questions of 
pathology and therapeutics, or to find various expressions of 
skepticism as to the consistency of some doctrines, or the efficacy 
of various methods of treatment advised in its works As upon 
all other subjects not physically or mathematically demonstrable, 
there are differences of opinion among thinking men, who are 
not bound by fixed creeds, acceptance of which is essential to 
membership in a fraternity. It must be remembered that, differ- 
erent from the homeopathic system, there is in the regular 
profession no fixed creed, no alleged universal principle the 
acceptance of which is necessary to the retention of a chosen 
designation. Homeopathy is a specific, well-defined thing, or it 
is nothing. If the doctrines of similia similibus curantur, and of 
the efficacy of infinitesimal doses, etc., are not held as true, the 
system has no real existence. If these doctrines are not in reality 
true, then the system is a fiction. 
In geology there are many facts and inferences which are 
fixed and unquestionable, but also many theories and opinions 
that are contradictory and doubtful. Geology is, nevertheless, 
a science, and those who are devoted to it constitute a 
kind of fraternity, but without a dogmatic creed. It is so with 
scientific medicine, but not the same with the homeopathic sys- 
tem of dogmas. These dogmas must be held or all is yielded; 
they must be true or the system is false. Associated with a false 
system there may be truths, and with a true science there may be 
errors, but to science all truth belongs, while to false systems 
truth is alien. 314 
TIZjE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW. 
Modern science has demonstrated the cause of some diseases 
(as examples, the relapsing fever in man and the "splenic fever" 
and " chicken cholera " in animals) to be organic parasitic poisons; 
and the general professional belief is, that all the specific diseases, 
such as cholera, malarial, typhoid, typhus, yellow, puerperal, and 
the eruptive fevers, are produced by zymotic or organic living 
poisons, and that the great curative remedies of the future will 
be antidotes and eliminatives for their destruction or expulsion. 
In view of the present state and drift of science, of the phenom- 
enal character of diseases, the existence of specific causes, and 
the present and hoped-for discoveries of antidotal and expelling 
remedies, how absurd become the dreams of exclusive systems ; 
particularly of this pretended universal therapeutical principle of 
"like-cure" and its dependent doctrines. Such unfounded specu- 
lations, originating in the darkness of the past and kept alive by 
the visionary or interested of the present, must recede more and 
more into the obscurity of past follies as science advances. 
A. B. Palmer/