It’s been said that Hahnemann would be more famous than he is if he had not developed homeopathy; that this has meant he’s come to be seen either as a saint or a charlatan. He was neither. He was first and foremost a critic of what he saw as the cruel, ineffective and unscientific treatments that he was trained to deliver – bleedings, purges, and huge doses of mercury. He renounced being a doctor for a time because he felt he did more harm than good. What was to become homeopathy developed from his insistence that medicines be tested before they were used, and even its opponents recognise Hahnemann’s significance in the history of pharmacology and therapeutics. We examine his arguments and those of his opponents. The similarities between the debates now and then are striking. But the programme also questions how useful the distinction between ‘mainstream’ and ‘alternative’ is for understanding the history of western medicine.

We interview leading medical historians in both the UK and Germany ; and actors bring to life the medical conflicts of Hahnemann’s own time.