Home
Home

Autor: Lic. Ivana Rosales de Barbero

Other pages:
   Previous
   ../../../conferencias/index.php

On this page
   Part 2
   Conclusions

More info
   Objective
   Methodology
   Introduction
   Part 1


Asociación Cordobesa de Farmacéuticos Homeopáticos
Entidad sin fines de lucro - Non-profit organization


Differences of Concentration in our First Potencies

Top  2nd Part

In this part we consider a MT prepared by the HPUS which uses the dry (anhydrous) plant as UDS, and we compare it with one prepared by WSP with the juice as UDS.

When we desiccate a plant, all the water (moisture) evaporates and only the substances insoluble in water and the ones soluble in water remain, so de UDS is

When we prepare a MT by method C of the HPUS we obtain 10 parts of MT for each part of dry plant:

which gives us a DS of 1/x' or 1/10.

From the point of view of WSP, this MT will have a different DS, depending on the juice of the plant, which is composed by H + DR.

with a DS = 1/x

This means that if the moisture of the plant (H) is higher than the amount of fibers , which is generally the case, the relation of will be smaller than 1 and x will be smaller than 10. This means that we should use less of the MT prepared by the HPUS to obtain a first potency of the same concentration, or in other words that the MT by HPUS is more concentrated from the point of view of the WSP.

If we now replace those values in our formula

where and we obtain

To give you an idea of the difference lets apply the formula to a plant with 30% of fibers (F), 10% of dry residue (DR) and 60% of moisture (H):

This general formula, which compares two MT made with different UDS (one with the dry plant, and the other with the juice ) allows us to calculate the amount of MT we should use to obtain the same concentration in our first potencies. The formula is also independent of the final volume of MT, since she is the same for method D of the HPUS (DS = 1/20)

We should exclude the French and Brazilian Pharmacopoeias from this comparison of juice versus dry plant because, although they realize their MT using the dry plant as UDS (as does the HPUS), they then consider the DS to be 1/1. In those cases, the difference grows as the final volume of our MT gets higher. In extreme cases in which the proportion of the dry drug in the MT is 1/100 (Method 3 of the Farmacopea Homeopatica Brasileira), and taking a DS of 1/1, the difference in respect to one prepared by the WSP would be so great that a first potency prepared by the Brazilian Pharmacopoeia would almost be equal (in concentration) to a third potency prepared by WSP.

 

Top  Conclusions

We obtained in this study a general formula to calculate the difference between the amount of MT we usually take, and the one we should take when we want to obtain identical concentrations of our first potency using MT prepared following different pharmacopoeias.

Following the same methodology we can obtain formulas to compare other pairs of MT not considered here (as GHP versus HPUS, or dry plant versus fresh plant, etc.).

We proved that the difference depends solely on the UDS of the MT we want to compare, and not on the final volume of the MT (except in those pharmacopoeias who give their MT a DS of 1/1, in which cases both parameters must be taken into account).

The difference depends also, but in a lesser amount, on the plant used, and on the conditions of its recollection (since we work with parameteres such as dry residue and moisture).

When we evaluate the difference of concentration in our first potencies, from the quimical point of view, it is evident that this can be relatively high, and should be especially taken into account for those drugs used in low decimal potencies, close to their toxic dose.

Nevertheless, we can not assure without further investigation if this difference has any influence on the energy or on the therapeutic effects of the medication. This is one of our next projects in Córdoba.

In any case, and although the terapeuthical difference may be imperceptible, with this study we proved the need to unify our methods of preparation, in order to assure a standardization, and the quality of our homeopathic remedies.


Sabine Klein
(c) ACFaH 1998-