Effects of Belladonna 12 CH and 30 CH in Healthy Volunteers

A Multiple, Single-Case Experiment in Randomization Design
  • H. Walach
  • S. Hieber
  • E. Ernst-Hieber

Abstract

The practice of homoeopathy lies on two principles: the law of similars and the potentization of homoeopathic remedies. The law of similars states that likes be cured by likes: “Similia similibus curentur” (Walach, 1986). This means for example that certain types of feavers which exhibit symptoms like an intoxication with deadly nightshade can be cured by the homoeopathic preparation Belladonna, which is prepared from this very same plant. While this principle has been known for a long time, it was the German doctor and pharmacist Samuel Hahnemann who made practical use of it, by giving drug substances to volunteers, noting down the symptoms they experienced, and using the very same symptoms as indication of this remedy in the case of a disease. His volunteers experienced sometimes quite toxic reactions. Therefore, Hahnemann diluted the remedial substances stepwise, by adding 99 drops of alcohol to one drop of substance and vigourously shaking it. This procedure he called “potentization” or “dynamisation”. For every dilution process he used a new glass vial. He experimented with very high dilutions not knowing that he had way beyond transgressed Avogadro’s number which states that 6.0231023 molecules are contained in one mole of any solution. By virtue of the homoeopathic potentization procedure, no molecules are to be expected in preparations beyond and above 12 CH or 24 XH, 12 stepwise agitated dilutions in the ratio 1:100, or 24 stepwise, agitated dilutions in the ratio 1:10. Hahnemann however, not knowing about Avogadro’s number, very frequently used potentizations as high as 30 CH or higher, and in the 6th edition of his Organon (Hahnemann 1979) he even prescribed 30 CH as a standard potency for curative and experimental procedures alike.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Edgington, E. (1987) Randomization Tests. Dekker Publisher, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Ernst-Hieber, E. and Hieber, S. (1995) Wirkt eine hom ö opathische Hochpotenz anders als ein Placebo?. Randomisierte, doppelblinde multiple Einzelfallstudie. Hippokrates Publisher, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  3. Fahrenberg, J. (1994) Die Freiburger Beschwerdeliste FBL. Form FBL-G und revidierte Form FBL-R. Hogrefe Publisher, GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  4. Fahrenberg, J., Hampel, R. and Selg, H. (1989) Das Freiburger Pers ö nlichkeitsinventar FPL Revidierte Fassung FPI-R und teilweise geänderte Fassung FPI-A. Hofgrefe Publisher, Göttingen. fifth Ed.Google Scholar
  5. Hahnemann, S. (1979) Organon der Heilkunst, sixth Ed.,. R. Haehl (ed.), Reprint — Hippokrates Publisher, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  6. Walach, H. (1986) Hom ö opathie als Basistherapie. Plädoyer für die wissenschaftliche Ernsthaftigkeit der Hom ö opathie. Haug Publisher, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  7. Walach, H. (1993) Does a highly diluted homeopathic drag act as a placebo in healthy volunteers? Experimental study of Belladonna 30 CH in double-blind crossover design-a pilot study, J. Psychosom. Res. 37, 851–869.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Weiss, B., Williams, J. H., Margen, S., Abrams, B., Caan, B., Citron, L. J., Cox, C, McKibben, J., Ogar, D. and Schultz, S. (1980) Behavioral responses to artificial food colors, Science 207, 1487–1489.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Walach
    • 1
  • S. Hieber
    • 1
  • E. Ernst-Hieber
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of FreiburgFreiburgGermany

Personalised recommendations