Dynamization techniques: divergences between the proposals by Hahnemann and todayÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s practices.
Introduction: over a paper presented in 1992, where Hahnemanns orientations were compared with the proposed in the literature about the preparation of medicines, a new study was made to verify the occurred modifications.Objectives: to verify the alterations occurred in relation of the preparation of homeopathic remedies, comparing Hahnemanns original indications and current pharmacopoeias and textbooks; to demonstrate that there are differences between original texts and pharmaceutical literature; to reflect about the possible clinical consequences of these differences. Methodology: the study was made through the comparison between hahnemannian literature (Organon 5th e 6th editions and Chronic Diseases) and national e international pharmacopoeias, besides textbooks. Results: through a comparative study of the literature it was possible to verify that Hahnemann’s propositions are not being integrally followed. Literature also provides us the probable clinical consequences of the alterations: loss of medicinal potency, more violent medicines, more likely to provoke aggravations. The weak standardization also makes more difficult the comparison between clinical and research results. Conclusions: the current editions of the pharmacopoeias and textbooks keep not following Hahnemanns orientations, related to homoeopathic medicines preparation. The difference probably takes us to medicines with less accuracy and more probable of causing aggravations. Our recommendation is the each Hahnemann indication are detail studied and tested, so the pharmaceutical literature may present a standardization coincident with the methods proposed by the critter of homeopathy. In this way, medicines with more accuracy will be produced, for the benefit of the users of homeopathy. The standardization makes easier the comparison of clinical and research data.