, 1527 The preparation of medicines had become a part of alchemy by the early modern period. Around 1350,
John of Rupescissa advocated the extraction of the "essence" of both plants and minerals. He often used two relatively new substances during this period: an alcohol distilled from wine and strong mineral acids. Later, "
Pseudo-Llull" (i.e. the body of work attributed to, but not necessarily written by,
Ramon Llull) picked up and helped in expanding John of Rupescissa's theory. The most effective and vocal proponent of iatrochemistry was Theophrastus von Hohenheim, also known as
Paracelsus (1493–1541). He put his effort into the transmutation of metals and emphasized iatrochemistry in his works. Paracelsus believed that diseases were caused by poisons, but that poisons were not entirely negative. He suggested that poisons, or diseases, could also be cured by poisons; thus, poisons could have beneficial medical effects. Paracelsus's claim led to many chemically prepared medicines in this period which contained toxic components: arsenic, antimony, mercury, lead, and other heavy metals. However, his views were not accepted by many scholars until his writings were organized into systematic form by his followers. Gradually, many physicians accepted Paracelsian remedies, although some disagreed with Paracelsus's philosophy.
Philipp Ulstad, who wrote some of the first books on chemical medicine, paved the way for a closer link between alchemy and medicine. His lucid, concise prose made
Coelum philosophorum (1527) In 1609, Flemish chemist
Jan Baptista van Helmont began a seven-year period of individual research, hoping to explore nature through chemistry, ultimately hoping to replace traditional learning. Van Helmont used chemical methods to study bodily products such as urine and blood. He studied the human body and its functions, and applied his knowledge of "chymistry" as a way of understanding and curing the body. This implied a common pool of fluid, participating in more than one of what the Galenists took to be distinct humours. His collected works were edited and published by his son under the title
Ortus medicinae (1648). Van Helmont's writings had a widespread influence on 17th-century European medical theory, and by 1709, twelve editions of
Ortus medicinae had been published in five languages. The diffusion of his medical ideas varied by region. In Italy the diffusion of Helmontian ideas was concentrated mainly in Venice, where two influential Helmontians lived: the German physician
Otto Tachenius and the Maceratese Ludovico Conti. There is also evidence that Helmontian iatrochemistry was widely diffused in Naples, as attested in the works of two prominent physicians, Lucantonio Porzio and Lionardo di Capua. A German-born physician,
Franciscus Sylvius (1614–1672), is best known in 18th-century European medicine for his contributions to the understanding of the biochemistry of the body and the tubercles, and as one of the co-founders of an iatrochemical school. In continuation of humoral medicine, Sylvius did deem that diseases resulted from excesses of the humors in the body, but he saw it as a more chemically driven excess, specifically one of too much acid or alkali solution in the body. Sylvius had his own laboratory in which he ran experiments on acids and alkali solutions to see the result when different mixtures were made. Much of his theories of the human body were based on the digestive processes. His understanding was that digestion helped food undergo a fermentation reaction. He reasoned that the body functioned mainly as a result of chemical reactions, of which acids and alkali were the essential reactants and were products which needed to be kept in balance to be in a healthy state. Although Sylvius did not take on the more observation-based style of medicine that was being so championed in the 17th and 18th centuries, his emphasis on the chemical reactions and knowledge helped support this more observation-driven scientific approach to medicine. It is known that many of Sylvius' inquiries did help in the future discoveries of certain enzymes driving food digestion and bodily reactions. The understanding of iatrochemists helped to drive new knowledge of how drugs work and treat medical conditions. In particular, one English iatrochemist,
Thomas Willis (1621–1675), considered the effect of diaphoretics (sweat-promoting drugs) as resulting from the mechanisms of the drug entering the blood and associating or disturbing blood and flow which produces a state of heat and sweat. He also hypothesized that the working of opiates came from an interaction with a salt in the body that created a painless and woozy feeling when it reached the brain. In his treatise
De fermentalione (1659), Willis rejected the four Aristotelian elements of earth, air, fire and water, stating that they provided no special insight into "the more secret recesses of nature". Willis settled on a view on the organization of natural things based strictly on chemistry. Natural philosopher
Robert Boyle contributed greatly to the understanding of respiration by showing that air (or oxygen), which is required for fire in combustion reactions, is also needed for human breathing.[1]
Challenge to Galenic physiology Iatrochemistry was a new practice in the 17th century, a time when traditional medicines were based on a legacy from the 4th and 5th centuries B.C. Much of this tradition was derived from
Galen and
Avicenna. The iatrochemists rejected the traditional medical theory, mostly from Galenic traditionalists. Galen traditionalists sought to establish the balance of temperament within the bodies. There are two pairs of qualities, hot and cold, and wet and dry. Sickness came from the imbalance of one quality. That is, a cold was an excess of heat (hot quality), so it can be cured by reducing hot quality or by increasing cold quality. The iatrochemists, influenced by Paracelsus's belief, believed that the sickness was from the outside source, not because of the imbalance of the body. Another controversy between Galenic traditionalists and iatrochemists was the way to use herbs. The Galenic traditionalists thought that the strength of remedies relied on the amount of plant materials that was used. The iatrochemists, however, supported the chemical preparation of materials of remedies to increase the effectiveness of the materials or to find the stronger medicine. Additionally, Galenic traditionalists argued that chemically prepared medicines were poisonous, and the iatrochemists were inadequately trained. The former was true, and, in some cases, both were correct. Since Paracelsus claimed that poisons could have beneficial medical effects, the number of toxic ingredients used in chemical medicines had increased. Galenic traditionalists later adapted medical method and some remedies to use in their own fields. == History in South Asia ==