The Steps to Homeopathic Materia Medica

All information on all collected drug reactions has been and will be added to a detailed remedy documentation, the homeopathic Materia Medica (cf. The 1st homeopathic Materia Medica). The information comes from various sources:

Self-experimentations^[1]
Systematic drug trials
Toxicological case reports and information
Data analysis from medical reports
Results from pharmaceutical studies^[2]

Information from around 220 years of literature publications in anthologies, the standard literature and information from historical journals with publications on case observations as well as supplementary results from 20-25 years of pharmaceutical studies according to EBM criteria are currently available for this purpose.

First, the subject-specific characteristics of clinical research with homeopathic drugs will be explained on the basis of the existing research criteria.

The evaluation of such a of such a large and complex dataset requires a separate analysis with valid criteria.

Phase I - Drug trials in test series

Historically, it is noteworthy that the first systematic drug trials on healthy subjects were actually conducted by homeopaths.

"This was and is usually conducted with small cohorts (individuals and small groups, n = 3–20) of trained observers who document their physiological reactions to the intake of test doses of a remedy. These are subsequently evaluated and documented by an investigator.

Such drug trials formed the initial foundation for practical application in treating patients (Organon §§ 105-145).

Due to the experimental design with a purely phenomenological focus, the greatest source of error is associated with the uncertainty as to whether the reactions determined in healthy participants can be transferred "one-to-one" to the reactions of sick people. A furth question is which disorders make certain drug reactions diagnostically important for differential diagnosis.

Toxicological reports

Toxicological reports are basically unintentional and generally unsystematic observations. On the one hand, they originate from collections of case reports from historical publications (e.g. Oenathe crocata Cf. Allen, 1877, vol 5, p. 1–17) and, on the other hand, are also based on the increasing pharmacological understanding of interactions through research results of the respective epoch, which is why they can also provide pathophysiological explanatory aids (e.g. pharmacological clinical supplements in J. Mezger's Gesichtete homöopathische Arzneimittellehre (Mezger, 2017)

They supplement symptoms that cannot be obtained through drug trials for ethical reasons, but are clinically relevant for homeopathic treatment (e.g. Hydrocyanum acidum Cf. Allen, 1878, vol. 7, p. 128–137)

The greatest imprecision in poisoning reports often results from the fact that the information is often only roughly formulated and cannot be individualized. If only unspecific descriptions are available, these at least provide an overview of the pathological effects of the substance in question.

At times, historical sources may also be questionable and require a reassessment of their credibility (e.g. Tarentula hispanica by Nunez; Lucae, 2006; Cf. Allen, 1879, vol. 9, p. 516–547).

Phase II and III – Application in Patients

It is understandable that collections over a period of 220 years are inconsistent in quality and vary greatly in precision. Standardized and systematic evaluation criteria have been lacking up to now, but are currently being further developed as part of Materia Medica research^[3].

The first therapeutic trial phase and clinical verification therefore coincide for historical reasons^[4].

Documentation and Sources

In addition to the major sources of homeopathic literature - primarily C. Hering's Guiding Symptoms of Materia Medica - there are incorporations of clinical experience in the main repertories, numerous differential diagnostic compendia (and a wealth of publications in specialist journals that have not yet been sufficiently reviewed. In principle, the historical sources are:

Simple medical reports (of the 19th century), which confirm a medicinal reaction in the patient.
Detailed single-case reports, which also enables an analysis of the sphere of influence.
Systematic accounts of experiences from epidemics are historically limited in availability and, when they do exist, they are mostly in the form of systematic reports of epidemic experiences.

The great benefit lies in the additions to the Materia Medica through documented drug reactions under clinical-pathological conditions. These are essential in order to correctly assess the practical significance of the remedies in clinical use. These include

Verification of drug reactions from drug trials (Phase I)
Verification and, if necessary, falsification of drug reactions in patients that occur during treatment or symptoms that react to the drug and were not previously known, so-called clinically verified symptoms (CVS), the experiences from Phase II and III.

This results in the spheres of influence of clinical influenceability, which is of course significant in a phenomenological approach. Historical documentation from the end of the 19th century already shows how central such evaluations are.

Burnett's famous case study

As an example, consider the well-known case of J. C. Burnett (1840-1901), who successfully treated a girl with recurrent headaches several times with Belladonna on the basis of exactly the right phenomenology. When the girl died unexpectedly, the autopsy revealed tuberculous meningitis as the cause of the disease, which could not be determined purely phenomenologically at the time.

Burnett's logically correct conclusion was that, despite suitable phenomenology, there was no certainty that the response to a remedy would be curative if the remedy for the pathology at hand did not show sufficient similarity to the pathological process, which he defined as the stopping point of the remedy (Burnett, 1994, p. 123 f.) .

n any case, the case example from Burnett's practice illustrates that homeopathic diagnostics and therapy can only be seriously practiced on the foundation of solid clinical medicine.

Requirements for practice and research

It is evident that unclear criteria with low comparability of healing and palliative effects lead to uncertainties and define a concrete need for research. Guiding questions are: Which disorders and diseases can be treated favorably in their course, either curatively or palliatively? And the following: What case analysis strategy and approach can best and most reliably achieve this?

This is also reflected in the definitions of curative and palliative reactions, which have changed over the course of 220 years due to changing requirements for precise evidence of defined drug reactions as knowledge has grown.

In part, this can also be verified by drug studies according to current EBM criteria, which provide indication-specific confirmations in high-quality studies. The complexity of randomized controlled trial (RCT) and pragmatic controlled trial (PCT) designs poses an additional methodological challenge, which requires a separate analysis in homeopathy research .

On the other hand, a differentiated analysis tool is required that is designed to produce the most reliable results possible - on a scientifically founded basis - in a verifiable manner and is constantly being developed further.

Phase IV - Verification in everyday practice

This includes all evaluations and compilations of healing reports in the historical specialist literature, especially those that led to the standard works of homeopathic pharmacology and the numerous clinical compendia.

The great benefit of this data lies in the verification of the results of drug trials through REAL WORLD DATA - practical experience gathered time and again. Even if, for historical reasons, these do not meet the current criteria for research and evaluation designs, they undoubtedly represent a solid wealth of knowledge from over 220 years of documented empirical medicine. For methodological reasons, the data is stable and reliable. However, the evaluation of this material requires a differentiated analysis methodology.

Analysis of literature data

All major sources on pharmacology, compendia, manuals, symptom collections and reference works, repertories and case reports are eligible.

However, the amount of homeopathy-specific literature is vast. Not all authors have adhered to the scientific concepts of their time over the past 220 years. Furthermore, many sources lack a connection to an exact methodology.

For this reason, a source review with a high level of expertise is necessary in order to define a Reliable Sources source collection. This also applies to the numerous publications since the 1990s. “Homeopathy” is not a protected term, which is why many "homeopathic publications" actually have little in common with homeopathy, but rather reflect the authors' opinions "about" and their personal ideas "of".

[1] Many self-experiments are described in the literature, especially from the early phase of homeopathy, which contributed to the development of the method of carrying out systematic drug trials.

[2] This possibility is still in its infancy and is not yet being used systematically.

[3] This is done on the basis of the evaluations of the Materia Medica Pura Project (MMPP) in cooperation with CHS. Further information on the Materia Media Pura Projekt can be found on the website https://mmpp-saine.com/en/mmpp/.

[4] EBM-based research, which has been established since the mid-1990s, is dealt with separately.

Sources and references

Allen, T. F. (1877). The encyclopedia of pure materia medica: A record of the positive effects of drugs upon the healthy human organism (vol. 5). Boericke & Tafel. http://resource.nlm.nih.gov/64240040RX5
Allen, T. F. (1878). The encyclopedia of pure materia medica: A record of the positive effects of drugs upon the healthy human organism (vol. 7). Boericke & Tafel. http://resource.nlm.nih.gov/64240040RX5
Allen, T. F. (1879). The encyclopedia of pure materia medica: A record of the positive effects of drugs upon the healthy human organism (vol. 9). Boericke & Tafel. http://resource.nlm.nih.gov/64240040RX5
Burnett, J. C. (with Chitkara, H. L.). (1994). Best of Burnett (Repr). Jain.
Hahnemann, S. (2017). Organon der Heilkunst (6. Ed.). Hahnemann Institut für homöopathische Dokumentation. Retrieved March 16, 2025, from https://archive.org/details/organon-der-heilkunst
Hering, C. (1879). The guiding symptoms of our materia medica (C. G. Raue, C. B. Knerr, & C. Mohr, Ed.; vol. 1–10).
Lucae, C. (2006). „Von der Tarantel gestochen”? Zeitschrift für Klassische Homöopathie, 50(2), 71–79. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2006-932337
Mezger, J. (2017). Gesichtete homöopathische Arzneimittellehre (U. Fröhlich, ed.; 13th, completely revised edition, vols. 1-2). Karl F. Haug Publishers.

Authors: glt | Rev.: sfm, bga | Editor: pz | last modified June 8, 2025