Hahnemann’s Potentised Medicinal Substances

ABSTRACT

This paper analyses the controversies surrounding Samuel Hahnemann’s potentisation method for the production of homeopathic remedies on the basis of critical writings by his pupil G.H.G. Jahr from the 19th century. Despite fierce rejection of the preparations by contemporary “scientific” opponents, Jahr’s scientific analysis highlights the careful empirical observations regarding the efficacy of high potencies. Jahr consistently separates empirical evidence from speculative interpretations and advocates for open research. Modern scientific findings from colloid chemistry and nanomedicine provide new, plausible models. The text emphasises the importance of methodologically rigorous yet open-minded scientificity that acknowledges experiences of efficacy independently of explanatory models and theories.

KEYWORDS: Homeopathy, G.H.G. Jahr, Potentised remedies, High potencies, Empirical research

Introduction

Birthdays are welcome occasions to remember and honour people.

When 1855 marked the 100th anniversary of Samuel Hahnemann’s birth, his pupil G.H.G. Jahr decided to publish a book as a commemorative gift for this anniversary, in order to discuss the tenets of homeopathy and to defend them soundly against the chorus of criticism. In 1856 he wrote the preface, and a year later the work was published:

'Die Lehren und Grundsätze der gesamten theoretischen und praktischen homöopathischen Heilkunst. Eine apologetisch-kritische Besprechung der Lehren Hahnemanns und seine Schule.' (transl. The Teachings and Principles of the Entire Theoretical and Practical Art of Homeopathic Healing. An apologetic and critical discussion of the teachings of Hahnemann and his school.)

After completing his medical studies in Bonn, Jahr had worked with Hahnemann in Köthen for over eight months in 1834 and had experienced his mentor’s way of thinking and working first-hand. He witnessed his mentor during a creative period in which the latter was revising his work. At the same time, some of the first pupils began to distance themselves and opposition within their own ranks grew, with the tone of the debate becoming more acrimonious. In the period that followed, Jahr took up his pen on several occasions, always with the intention of explaining and mediating. So it was this time too:

“It is not a desire for unnecessary controversy, but a deep sense of our duty that has led us, where no one else seemed inclined to take up the cudgel for the truth, to step into the fray ourselves as fighters; for when one approaches one’s 60th year with firm steps, one thinks […] of the sacred duties one must fulfil for the growing and succeeding generation , and of the testimony one owes to one’s descendants at the end of nearly thirty years of practising the Master’s teachings.” (Jahr, 1857, Introduction p. VI, transl. by the author)

In 16 chapters and a total of 180 paragraphs, Jahr presented explanations, reflections and arguments, and invited readers to engage in an honest debate on well-founded contradictions. His discussions of the doctrines are detailed and follow a clear didactic approach, which was important to him as an experienced teacher. He examines the questions from various perspectives, weighs them up, draws logical conclusions and leaves open what remains unresolved.

Now, in 2026, G.H.G. Jahr is also celebrating a milestone birthday, his 225th, an occasion to revisit his profound work.

Since it was precisely my engagement with this work, that prompted me to study G.H.G. Jahr’s life and work more intensively, it shall serve here as a starting point for a topic that has lost none of its relevance in over 200 years – homeopathic high potencies.

Potency Theory – A Bone of Contention

The sixth chapter of 'Teachings and Principles' deals with Hahnemann’s posological views – the controversial doctrine of the dosage of homeopathically selected remedies. Jahr thus addresses what is, to date, the least understood aspect of Hahnemann’s teachings: the preparation of remedies through a step-by-step process of dilution, trituration and succussion. Hahnemann described the preparation process in detail in the instructions for the preparation of antipsoric remedies (Anleitung zur Bereitung der antipsorischen Arzneien originally published in: The Chronic Diseases (Die Chronischen Krankheiten), 1st edition 1828, Part 2) (Hahnemann, 2001, pp. 767–773). In the 5th edition of The Organon of Medicine (Organon der Heilkunst, 1833), he explained the method of preparing potencies once again in § 270[1] for liquid starting materials and in § 271[2] for solid substances, though here in a more concise form.

These dosages, which seemed absurdly small by mathematical standards, gave ample cause for controversy. They provided homeopathy’s critics with a golden opportunity, whilst the educated public perceived them as a world-shaking imposition.

One of the fiercest critics of high potencies was the Karlsruhe-based physician Ludwig Griesselich, who, as editor and author in the journal Hygea, took a firm stance with a wide reach. The young Dr Griesselich (1804–1848) did indeed support homeopathy, but he had so many objections to Hahnemann’s teachings that he called for homeopathy to be separated from its founder’s name.

Together with his colleague Friedrich Ludwig Schrön, he wrote a polemic in 1836 entitled

Open Confession on the Art of Healing in General and Homeopathy in Particular, […] submitted to the judgement of impartial physicians. (Offenes Bekenntnis über Heilkunst im Allgemeinen und Homöopathie ins Besondere, […] dem Urtheile unparteiischer Aerzte vorgelegt. Griesselich & Schrön, 1836, transl. by the author)

This discussion, consisting of 58 statements and spanning 35 pages, polarised opinion and demanded that people take a stand. Thus, the creeping division among homeopaths into ‘scientists critical of Hahnemann’ and ‘loyal Hahnemannians’ – which was already beginning to emerge – was, in a sense, publicly consummated.

With his inflammatory texts, Griesselich ensured that the dispute became entrenched. He addressed the topic of potentisation on several occasions, dissecting the publications of other colleagues on the subject without, however, conducting his own experiments. His conclusion: what colleagues presented as experience was mostly based on self-deception. With unvarnished professional arrogance, he passed judgement on case reports by C. v. Bönninghausen, whom “one must, however, consider incompetent in the whole matter, as he is not a physician”. (Griesselich, 1845, p. 459)

Arguing that “to follow the theory of this potentisation would be to follow a host of contradictions”, Griesselich had rejected his own practical testing from the outset. (Griesselich & Schrön, 1836, p. 349, transl. by the author)

Given the era, it was only possible to formulate theories about what was thought to be happening to the various substances during the potentisation process described. It was also unclear how many potentisation steps were actually possible, and whether shaking the remedies made them more potent or served to mitigate overly strong effects.

Although at the beginning of the 19th century there was already a conception of atoms as the smallest building blocks of matter, there were still no physical or chemical methods available to verify their existence. Atoms and molecules were simply invisible; their existence could only be inferred indirectly. The extremely small quantities of substances in higher potencies could not be ‘grasped’- either literally or conceptually. What was effective therefore eluded both sensory perception and the technical possibilities of magnification and analysis available at the time.

It was not until the second half of the 19th century that mathematical estimates of particle numbers became possible. Loschmidt’s molecular-theoretical concepts formed the basis for the first model calculations regarding the substance content of homeopathic potencies. Thus, in 1893, Theodor Sauter published a calculation according to which high potencies above D24 or C12 were statistically unlikely to contain any molecules of the original substance (Sauter, 1893) .

However, the persuasiveness of this calculation relies heavily on idealised assumptions: a completely homogeneous distribution of freely moving molecules, a strictly geometric dilution progression, and ideal statistical mixing behaviour. Real water-alcohol mixtures do not behave like ideal gases; in addition, there are interfacial phenomena, adsorption onto vessel surfaces, and mechanochemical changes caused by trituration and shaking. This model calculation cannot prove that high potencies must necessarily be completely substance-free under real conditions. As early as 1958, Rudolf Richwien pointed out these limitations in detail (Richwien, 1958) .[3]

Nevertheless, the so-called Loschmidt-Avogadro argument is still frequently used in the homeopathy debate as direct physical proof of the absence of substance, even though it is based on a chain of models whose underlying assumptions are usually not reflected in popular accounts.

What Jahr stated in § 57 of the Teachings and Principles therefore still holds true:

“No point in Hahnemann’s entire doctrine has probably been written about, mocked, argued over and scrutinised more than this one; for most of our allopathic opponents, it remains to this day the sole bone of contention preventing them from examining Hahnemann’s doctrines more closely, […] Indeed, even within our own school, the entire opposition […] has in fact been stirred up solely by this point.” (Jahr, 1857, § 57, transl. by the author)

The opposition “within our own school” was something that long troubled Jahr, particularly the destructive, at times spiteful nature of the disputes. Just how deeply this personally offended him runs like a thread through the prefaces to his numerous other publications.

Hahnemann’s empirical discoveries

What, then, led Hahnemann to reduce the quantity of his remedies so drastically?

Jahr explains that Hahnemann was not pursuing any theoretical concept, but merely the goal of determining a dosage that would have an effect on the patient without causing harm and could elicit reactions in healthy test subjects during trials. Since he used naturally occurring pure substances without mixing them with pharmaceutical excipients[4], he chose to reduce the medicinal mass by diluting soluble substances in ethyl alcohol and triturating insoluble substances with lactose.

In the process, Hahnemann made observations that he had not anticipated. With simple dilution, the effect diminished. If he shook the solution vigorously several times between dilution steps – with the aim of thoroughly mixing the substance and the solvent – the medicinal effect intensified with each step. He observed this effect both in potent remedies and poisons (e.g. arsenic), as well as in substances used in folk medicine (e.g. chamomile, valerian) and, finally, in inert substances (e.g. table salt, lycopodium).

What he observed following the gradual shaking (and trituration) and dilution of the preparations not only caused astonishment but also stimulated his inquiring mind.

In Hahnemann’s Collected Minor Writings, there are two insightful essays[5] [6] in which he describes his procedure, his observations and his findings in detail. The essay ‘Instruction for the Seeker of Truth’ was written in July 1825 in response to an enquiry in the daily newspaper Allgemeiner Anzeiger und Nationalzeitung der Deutschen. (Hahnemann, 2001, 1825)

In it, he described the effect of rubbing in the following words:

“Rubbing has such a powerful effect that not only are the internal physical forces […] awakened and developed from the natural substances, but, as was previously unknown, the medicinal-dynamic forces of the natural substances are also brought forth to an incredible degree.” (Hahnemann, 2001 (1825) , p. 755, transl. by the author)

Since this observation was new to the well-read Hahnemann, he regarded himself as the first to make this discovery,

“that the power of raw medicinal substances, when liquid, through repeated shaking with non-medicinal liquids, and when dry, through repeated and sustained rubbing with non-medicinal powders, increases in medicinal efficacy to such an extent that […] even substances in which, in their raw state, for centuries, no medicinal power could be perceived, reveal, under this process, a power to affect human health that arouses astonishment.” (Hahnemann, 2001 (1825) , p. 755, transl. by the author)

In their ordinary state, fine gold, fine silver and platinum prove to have no effect on human health; even a sensitive person would notice nothing upon ingesting a few grains of gold leaf or silver leaf.

“However, if one grain of gold leaf is ground in a porcelain mortar for an hour with 100 grains of lactose, applying moderate force, this powder (the first dilution) has already acquired a noticeable medicinal power. If, furthermore, one grain of this powder is triturated with 100 grains of fresh lactose with the same intensity and for the same duration, the preparation already acquires a far greater medicinal potency […]” (Hahnemann, 2001 (1825) , p. 755, transl. by the author)

The fact that the triturated and succussed preparations do not act in the same way as the raw starting substance was demonstrated by repeated empirical observations, which were carefully documented by Hahnemann. But how does one describe the principle of action that changes after trituration? As the observation was entirely new, there was no suitable term for it – a problem that Hahnemann, the researcher, also identifies as such:

“It is, however, these homeopathic medicinal dilutions (— it is a pity that there is no more appropriate term in any language for this process, nor could there be, since this phenomenon had never been heard of before its discovery —) these dilutions are so far from being merely reductions and diminutions of the medicinal power of this grain or drop of crude medicinal substance in line with such profoundly divided numerical fractions, that they rather prove in experience to be true increases of its medicinal efficacy, true spiritualisations of the inherent dynamic force, true, astonishing revelations and vitalizations of its medicinal spirit." (Hahnemann, 2001 (1825) p.756, transl. by the author)

It was here that the formulation of “dynamic force” emerged, a typical Hahnemannian placeholder term. Hahnemann’s language, including the use of expressions such as “spiritualisation,” “unveiling of dynamic forces,” and “liberation from the bonds of matter,” left considerable room for interpretation and misunderstanding. He described a change in the state of matter that was not merely simple dilution. In practice, it was observed that patients responded differently to merely diluted substances than to potentised preparations, and that this difference increased with the degree of potentisation.

Hahnemann uses the terms potency and potentisation in accordance with the original Latin meaning of potentia = ‘power, strength’, derived from potis = ‘able, powerful’ and esse = ‘to be’.

He distinguishes between disease potencies and medicinal potencies. The former are natural or artificial influences (pathogens, poisons, medicines) with the ability to trigger disease. By medicinal potency, he refers to the ability of medicines to heal (also known as healing potency). He uses the term ‘potentisation’ for ‘the type of force development specific to homeopathy through rubbing or shaking’ (cf. Gesammelte Kleine Schriften).

The stance and arguments of the ‘scientific’ opposition

“But there are several reasons why the sceptic mocks these homeopathic dilutions. Firstly, because he is unaware that through this kind of rubbing the inner medicinal power miraculously comes to life and, as it were, frees itself from the bonds of matter, so as to be able to act all the more penetratingly and freely upon the human organism; secondly, because a purely arithmetic mind sees here nothing but an immense example of division, a mere material division and reduction, since then, naturally, every part must be smaller than the whole – as every child knows; but he fails to realise that, in these spiritualisations of the inner healing power, the shell of these natural forces—the palpable, weighable substance—cannot be taken into account; thirdly, because the sceptic has no experience of the effect of preparations thus heightened in their medicinal power.” (Hahnemann, 2001 (1825) p.756, transl. by the author)

Samuel Hahnemann analyzed, with a sober awareness of human patterns of thought, why homeopathic potencies met with so much incomprehension and ridicule. These are the same arguments as today:

1. It was unknown at the time (and remains largely so today) that this method of preparing substances through rubbing and shaking creates a different form of action. Recent studies suggest that this process creates colloidal structures and nanoparticles that are not present in the original solution. (Bell & Koithan, 2012) (see also Models and Hypotheses of Action)
2. There is now clear evidence that the thus finely divided and processed substance particles, when in contact with the colloidal structures of the organism, act according to different principles that cannot be described using conventional pharmacokinetics (ADME[7]) and are therefore not directly related to the quantifiable amount of the substance (no linear dose-response relationship; Bell & Koithan, 2012; Traube, 1925)
3. Those who are most sceptical are often theorists, as they do not make the effort to undertake thorough empirical verification.

In 1825, he explained this sceptical stance in §§ 57 and 58 as follows:

“Most of our allopathic opponents […] cannot comprehend how nothing can have an effect, i.e., how, where not only to the unaided senses but even to optical instruments and chemical reagents the last trace of the original substance seems to have vanished completely, any manifestation of power can still take place.” (Jahr, 1857, transl. by the author)

This way of thinking was based on seemingly irrefutable pillars:

1. the assumption that an effect could only emanate from a weighable amount of substance, and
2. the reasoning that, if such high dilutions were to be effective, this would be comparable, purely in terms of quantity, to a drop of medicine in Lake Geneva, which would then render the entire lake water effective.

A speculative mind

Hahnemann did not agree with Jahr on everything; he considered premature speculative attempts at explanation to be just as counterproductive as the dismissive attitude of his opponents.

“Hahnemann, who, despite his excellent powers of observation—perhaps unsurpassed by anyone for some time—was at the same time a speculative mind who liked to account to himself for what he had discovered and attempted to draw further conclusions from it, was not always able to refrain from such hasty conclusions; many individual parts of his doctrine provide proof that he sometimes expressed thoughts—which were in themselves quite correct and which occurred to him during his observations—a little too hastily, and attributed a broader and more comprehensive meaning to the truths contained therein than was permissible.” (Jahr, 1857, § 61, transl. by the author)

The claim that medicinal powers were increased through trituration and succussion was, according to Jahr, unproven (Jahr, 1857, § 62) . He considered it incorrect to speak of an increase in potency in this context and expressly rejected Hahnemann’s theoretical attempts at explanation (Jahr, 1857, § 64) .

Jahr was of the view that the effect of higher dilutions could be explained solely by the purely mechanical reduction in mass and the fine dispersion, without any assumption of an additional development of force. Modern colloid chemistry shows that the increase in surface area is a physical change that can certainly explain the increased biological activity of the smallest particles without the need to assume a mystical ‘force’ (Hartmann, 2006; Schwarze et al., 2007) .

In 1800, he considered it more likely

“that the force which we see continuing to act and producing all manner of phenomena is no longer that of the remedy, but rather that of the organism’s own vital activity, stimulated by it”. (Jahr, 1857, § 65, transl. by the author)

The remedy thus has only a triggering function, similar to that of an initiator.

The necessity of research and experience

Whilst opponents within his own school fail to grasp the physical comprehensibility of the matter, Jahr takes a pragmatic approach by describing the path of empirical methodology

“And what does science teach us about the characteristics and properties of things? It teaches that these can neither be grasped by the intellect nor determined by rational conclusions, but can only be perceived through direct observation and established only through continuous observation, i.e. only through experience […]” (Jahr, 1857, § 58, transl. by the author)

The fact that, after each potentisation step, the ingestion of the dilution triggers a further reaction shows that a material substrate must still be present. However, the form of the reaction does not necessarily correspond to the original substance. This is not mysticism, but rather a problem to be solved physically, which still needs to be investigated. (Jahr, 1857, §§ 58–59)

He also considered the mockery directed at Jenichen’s high potencies[8] to be unwarranted. He did, however, admit that he did not use Jenichen’s remedies for scientific demonstrations, as the exact method of preparation was unclear. But he did not deny their efficacy: “We can all the less deny the efficacy of the so-called high potencies prepared by Jenichen, as we have tested them several times.” (Jahr, 1857, § 58, transl. by the author)

Jahr succeeded where many of his contemporaries failed: he made a strict distinction between empirical evidence and theoretical explanations. He knew the effect of the minute doses from his own practice; that it existed was beyond question for him, regardless of whether the knowledge of his time could provide an explanation for it or not.

“Investigation of the facts through experience therefore remains, here too, the only genuinely scientific way to gain clarity regarding the efficacy not only of the high and highest, but also of the low and lowest of our so-called homeopathic dilutions.” (Jahr, 1857, § 58, transl. by the author)

This sentence is a statement of a fundamental scientific principle: empirical experience precedes theory. Anyone who denies an observable effect simply because it does not fit into their own theoretical model (worldview) is subject to a confirmation bias, which prevents the acquisition of scientific knowledge.

“[…] the greater an absurdity is that is widespread among the people or among scholars, and the more its prevalence increases, the more it is the duty of all truly educated and scientifically minded thinkers not to dismiss the facts […] so lightly as non-existent, but rather to examine them all the more closely and precisely […].

By simply denying the facts on which others rely, errors in science only become increasingly widespread” (Jahr, 1857, § 60, transl. by the author)

Opponents of homeopathy, as well as the supposedly ‘scientifically critical’ faction of homeopaths, have succumbed to precisely this fallacy. High potencies are rejected, not because they have been empirically disproved, but because they cannot be fitted into the scientific model of the prevailing worldview.

Jahr’s scientifically open-minded attitude proves far-sighted

The crucial point in Jahr’s argument is to consider it possible that the potentised dilutions contain particles of the original substance which may have undergone a physical change during the manufacturing process.

“That no property can exist without a thing […] is undeniable. But can this statement be applied to our homeopathic dilutions? […] The material substrate is no longer the same as that which, in the raw state of the remedy, fixed the active property.” (Jahr, 1857, § 59, transl. by the author)

The fact that rubbing and shaking can cause a change in the state of matter and thus also in the pharmaceutical effect – and what Jahr and Hahnemann could only describe as ‘spiritualisation’ or ‘the unveiling of dynamic forces’ – only received its first hypothetical explanation at the beginning of the 20th century through colloid chemistry.

A colloid is a system in which tiny particles (1–1000 nanometres) are finely dispersed in a dispersion medium. Its distinctive feature is that it is not the mass but the surface area that determines its interactions. (Bechhold, 1929)

What sounded like a bold speculation 170 years ago is now being viewed in a new light, thanks in part to the initial findings of nanomedicine and the mechanisms of action identified by systems biology. Certain approaches in modern colloid chemistry and nanomedicine make it possible to re-examine historical observations on potentisation from a physico-chemical perspective. Whether these models can fully explain the postulated mechanisms of action is the subject of current research:

In their 2012 article ‘A model for homeopathic remedy effects: low dose nanoparticles, allostatic cross-adaptation, and time-dependent sensitisation in a complex adaptive system’, Bell and Koithan presented a plausible explanatory concept for the potentisation process.

1. The vigorous rubbing (trituration) and shaking (dynamisation) are not mere mixing processes, but rather a mechanochemical activation. Studies show that the mechanical energy applied during trituration and dynamisation is sufficient to break down crystal lattices and generate nanoparticles with a large specific surface area.
2. When Hahnemann observed that previously insoluble substances (quartz, sulphur, gold) became ‘soluble in water and spirit of wine’ after potentisation, this was not a true molecular solution, but a kinetically stable colloidal dispersion. The particles are so small that they do not settle – they appear to be dissolved.
3. The biological effects of a colloidal system depend primarily on its interfacial activity. The smaller the particles become, the more contact points they possess for interactions with cell membranes, proteins and receptors. The increase in potency observed repeatedly by Hahnemann and Jahr (with simultaneous dilution) is therefore, from a colloid chemistry perspective, not a paradox but a logical consequence of the increasing surface area and the associated activation of physical interactions.

In a recent literature review, the authors Krishnan and Nair analysed 33 studies dealing with the presence of nanoparticles in homeopathic preparations. The nanoparticles in homeopathic triturations and dilutions were characterised using various analytical methods, including spectroscopic and microscopic techniques.

They concluded that, despite the high methodological quality of individual studies, further research is still required, particularly to achieve more robust results using specific process techniques and suitable combinations of established characterisation techniques. The authors consider it likely that this approach will lead to a better understanding of the properties of nanoparticles in homeopathic medicines and their role in biological effects. (Krishnan & Nair, 2026)

Hahnemann and Jahr had no access to such models and theories. Consequently, suitable technical terminology for the precise description of the phenomena was not yet available. Furthermore, unlike today, the technical and analytical methods were still a long way off.

However, the empirical evidence – the activation of inert substances, the change in solubility, the absence of chemical neutralisation, the increase in potency with seemingly infinite dilution in high potencies – is compatible with the more recent findings of colloid chemistry and nanotechnology.

Who was truly ‘scientifically critical’?

The irony of the history of science lies in the fact that those who presented themselves as the ‘scientifically critical’ faction within homeopathy effectively shied away from empirical evidence – that is, the scientific methodology still in use today – and clung to a theoretical model that was unable to incorporate observations and documented evidence.

Hahnemann actually practised science: he built the methodology of homeopathy on systematic empiricism, self-reflectively corrected errors and his own theoretical biases, and left the inexplicable as open questions for future generations. Jahr followed him in this regard with a professional scientific attitude like hardly anyone else.

Hahnemann dealt openly with uncertainties; he did not expect blind faith in his observations regarding high potencies, but merely scientific openness and fair discourse.

“I do not demand any belief in this, nor do I require that anyone should understand it. I do not understand it myself either; but suffice it to say that the fact is as it is and no other. It is merely experience that tells me so, and I trust experience more than my own insight.” (Hahnemann, 1999, p. 154 FN, transl. by the author)

Jahr’s discussion of Hahnemann’s teachings remains a relevant plea for honest scientificity to this day: scientific work is never complete – future generations will explain what is incomprehensible today.

“All that can be said about the efficacy of our dilutions is that it is a fact; we cannot explain anything.” (Jahr, 1857, § 66, transl. by the author)

Jahr proves himself to be a perceptive observer and a logical-analytical thinker. His writings reveal not a naive adherent of Hahnemann’s theories, but a broadly educated, scientifically critical mind who recognised the effect of potentised dilutions yet rejected hasty explanations. It was precisely through this that Jahr sketched out the bridge between the systematic empiricism of homeopathic practice and the achievements of that future scientific research which was not yet possible in his time.

Ilka Sommer, CHS, 16 May 2026

---

[1] § 270: Thus, 2 drops of fresh plant juices mixed in equal parts with ethyl alcohol are diluted with 98 drops of ethyl alcohol and potentised by shaking twice as the first stage of potentisation, and this process is repeated through a further 29 bottles, each filled with 99 drops of ethyl alcohol to ³ /₄ , so that each subsequent bottle is added one drop from the previous bottle (which has already been shaken twice), to be shaken twice in turn, and in the same manner, finally, the 30th potency (potentised decillion dilution, X) as the most commonly used. (Phrasing adapted to current conventions and transl. by the author)

[2] § 271: All other substances intended for medicinal use – with the exception of sulphur […] – such as: pure or oxidised and sulphurised metals and other minerals, mineral oil, phosphorus, as well as plant parts and plant juices that can only be preserved in a dry state, animal substances, neutral and intermediate salts, etc., all of these are first potentised in three stages to a millionfold powder dilution by rubbing three times for one hour each; from this, however, one grain is dissolved and, through 27 dilution vials in a manner similar to that used for plant juices, brought to the 30th potency. (Phrasing adapted to current conventions and transl. by the author)

[3] In 1865, Johann Josef Loschmidt (1821-1895) determined the order of magnitude of the number of molecules in a gas. The Loschmidt number, named after him, denotes the number of particles in a given volume of gas under defined conditions and further developed Amedo Avogadro’s (1776-1856) hypothesis of 1811, according to which equal volumes of gas under the same conditions contain the same number of particles. The Avogadro constant – the number of particles per mole – was not introduced until 1909 by Jean Baptiste Perrin and named in honour of Avogadro. Both quantities are mathematically related, but are not physically identical: the Loschmidt number refers to the particle density in a volume, whilst the Avogadro constant refers to the defined amount of substance, the mole.

[4] Only the Causticum Hahnemanni introduced by Samuel Hahnemann constitutes an exception here. Derived from caustic (Greek: ‘burning’ or ‘corrosive’), caustic substances were pharmaceutical agents used primarily by surgeons. Hahnemann prepared his particularly pure caustic tincture through a special chemical process (see also Jansen, K. H., & Quak, D. T. (2018). Die Entschlüsselung des Causticumrätsels. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.11663.28324).

[5] Hahnemann, S. (1825) Belehrung für den Wahrheitssucher, In: Hahnemann, S. (2001). Gesammelte kleine Schriften (J. M. Schmidt, ed.). Haug. pp. 754–756

[6] Hahnemann, S. (1827) How can small doses of such highly diluted remedies, as prescribed by homeopathy, still possess power, indeed great power? Hahnemann, S. (2001). Gesammelte kleine Schriften (ed. J. M. Schmidt). Haug. pp. 763–766

[7] ADME - Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism and Excretion

[8] Julius Caspar Jenichen (1787–1849) was a lay homeopathic practitioner. Inspired by Constantin Hering, he experimented with high potencies, but was ridiculed by physicans associated with Ludwig Griesselich. Jenichen did not publish his work himself; following his early death, his confidant Dr Rentsch published Jenichen’s method in 1851 in the Allgemeine homöopathische Zeitung (Rentsch, 1851), which sparked fierce controversy. Jenichen used all his physical strength in the process of potentisation, but provided no consistent details regarding his procedure. It is likely that it developed further through trial and error. Whilst Hahnemann’s opponents discredited Jenichen, the other faction tested his potencies and found them to be highly effective. It remains unclear whether he diluted before each dilution step or measured the potency by the number of shaking strokes. (Jahr, 1857)

---

Sources and references

Bechhold, H. (1929). Die Kolloide in Biologie und Medizin (5th edn). Theodor Steinkopf. https://archive.org/details/b29807207

Bell, I. R., & Koithan, M. (2012). A model for homeopathic remedy effects: Low dose nanoparticles, allostatic cross-adaptation, and time-dependent sensitization in a complex adaptive system. BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 12, 191. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6882-12-191

Griesselich, L. (1845). Hochpotenzen. Hygea, 20, 452–479, 551–561.

Griesselich, L., & Schrön, F. L. (1836). Offenes Bekenntnis über Heilkunst im Allgemeinen und Homöopathie ins Besondere, von Dr. Griesselich und Dr. Schrön dem Urtheile unparteiischer Aerzte vorgelegt. Hygea, 3, 321–354.

Hahnemann, S. (1833). Organon der Heilkunst (5th edn). http://www.zeno.org/Kulturgeschichte/M/Hahnemann,+Samuel/Organon+der+Heilkunst+(5.+Auflage)

Hahnemann, S. (1999). Die chronischen Krankheiten. 1: Theoretische Grundlagen (Band 1) (2. Auflage., typograph. Neugest. der 2., viel verm. Aufl. von 1835). Haug.

Hahnemann, S. (2001). Gesammelte kleine Schriften (J. M. Schmidt, Ed.). Haug.

Hartmann, U. (2006). Faszination Nanotechnologie (1st edn). Elsevier, Spektrum Akademischer Verl.

Jahr, G. H. G. (1857). Die Lehren und Grundsätze der gesamten theoretischen und praktischen homöo-pathischen Heilkunst. Eine apologetisch-kritische Besprechung der Lehren Hahnemanns und seine Schule. Liesching. https://books.google.de/books?id=scBbAAAAcAAJ&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Gottlieb+Heinrich+Georg+Jahr%22&hl=de&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Krishnan, P. A., & Nair, B. G. (2026). Homeopathic Medicines and Nanoparticles: A Critical Narrative Review. Homeopathy, a-2724-4619. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2724-4619

Rentsch, G. (1851). Jenichen und die Hochpotenzen. Allgemeine Homöopathische Zeitung, 42, Nr. 10, 11, 12, 145–151, 161–167, 177–181.

Richwien, R. (1958). Sind Hochpotenzen wirklich molekülfrei? ZKH, 2(H 1), 2–11.

Sauter. (1893). Die homöopathischen Verdünnungen vom Standpunkt der Mathematik aus betrachtet. Jahreshefte Des Vereins Für Mathematik Und Naturwissenschaften in Ulm, 6. Jahrgang, 38–46. https://www.google.de/books/edition/Jahreshefte_des_Vereins_f%C3%BCr_Mathematik/yDWd2lVN-x4C?hl=de&gbpv=1&dq=Die+hom%C3%B6opathischen+Verd%C3%BCnnungen+vom+Standpunkt+der+Mathematik+aus+betrachtet.&pg=PA38&printsec=frontcover

Schwarze, P. E., Øvrevik, J., Hetland, R. B., Becher, R., Cassee, F. R., Låg, M., Løvik, M., Dybing, E., & Refsnes, M. (2007). Importance of Size and Composition of Particles for Effects on Cells In Vitro. Inhalation Toxicology, 19(sup1), 17–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/08958370701490445

Traube, I. (1925). Kolloidchemische Betrachtungen über Probleme der Homöopathie. Münchener Medizinische Wochenschrift, 72(34), 1422–1424. https://archive.org/details/munchenermedizin7221unse/page/1422/mode/1up?q=Traube

---

Authors: smi | Rev.: glt | Editor: pz | last modified Mai 17, 2026