Close
today i learned (til)

Medieval Medicinal Remedies Not to Try at Home

April 29, 2024

In the medieval era, medicinal practices were influenced by a blend of herbalism, superstition, and early medical theories. This led to an array of home remedies, some effective, some strange, some which should never be practiced today, that people of that time used to cure themselves of their ailments. Here’s a list of the most common remedies of that time.

For migraines

The medieval remedy for migraines was boiling barley with herbs like betony and vervain, then wrapping them in a cloth and applying them to the head. Betony, a grassland herb, was commonly used in medieval remedies for various ailments and is still utilized in modern medicine for treating severe headaches and migraines. Vervain, known for its glycoside derivatives, was also used in the remedy and is still applied today in modern treatments for migraines, depression, and anxiety.

For a sore throat

The medieval remedy for quinsy involved a rather gruesome procedure: stuffing a cat with various ingredients like hedgehog grease, bear fat, resins, fenugreek, sage, honeysuckle gum, and wax, then roasting it and using the gathered grease to apply on the patient’s body. This bizarre treatment is just one example of harmful medieval practices that should not be practiced today. 

For a cough

The medieval remedy for treating a cough was consuming a mixture of horehound juice and diapenidion, a confection made from barley water, sugar, and egg whites drawn out into threads. Horehound, known for its effectiveness in treating coughs, was combined with diapenidion, which provided a sweet and pleasant taste. Some parts of this remedy are still used today as sugar, a key ingredient in diapenidion, is used in over-the-counter cough remedies for its soothing effects on the chest. 

For an upset stomach

To relieve colic caused by trapped wind, medieval medicine prescribed a remedy made from carminatives, cumin and anise, steeped in white wine for three days and nights. After drying for nine days on an ash board, the mixture was powdered and ingested in pottage or as a drink. Alternatively, dill and fennel could be used for the same purpose, similar to modern gripe water formulas. This concoction usually took around 2 weeks to prepare, so patients would likely purchase this remedy from apothecaries.

For gout

To treat gout, medieval people would prepare an owl by plucking it, cleaning it, and salting it before placing it in a pot covered with a stone and baking it in an oven until burnt. Once burnt, the owl was pounded with boar’s grease to create a mixture used for anointing the affected area. However, this treatment was likely entirely ineffective and only led to an unfortunate situation for the owl. 

A stye/bump on the eye

The remedy for a stye, or a small painful bump, on the eye was done through first pounding either onion or leek and garlic, then mixing them with equal parts of wine and bull’s gall. After letting the mixture stand for nine nights in a brass bowl, it was strained and applied to the eye with a feather at night. This concoction, though initially unappealing in appearance and odor, exhibited potent antibiotic properties due to the antimicrobial components of onion, garlic, and bull’s gall. Additionally, the reaction between the wine and brass bowl produced bactericidal copper salts. Recent research has validated the efficacy of this remedy, prompting further investigation for potential use against antibiotic-resistant infections like MRSA. 

For burns and scalds

Medieval medicine recommended using the slime of a live snail to treat burns and scalds, a simple yet effective remedy that reduces blistering and alleviates pain. Recent scientific studies have confirmed that snail slime contains a range of beneficial properties, including antioxidants, antiseptics, anti-inflammatories, and skin-repairing compounds like collagen and elastin. Modern skincare products, known as “Snail Gel,” now utilize these properties for treating minor injuries such as cuts, burns, and scalds.

For sciatica nerve pain

Medieval remedies for sciatica or pain caused by the sciatic nerve often included a mixture of ingredients such as the gall of a red ox, water-pepper, cumin, and suet. These ingredients were boiled together to create an ointment-like gruel, which was then applied to the affected area. Additionally, the patient was instructed to apply heat to the hip bone and use hot cloths on the area. Despite the questionable effectiveness of the ingredients, the combination of bed rest and heat treatments may have provided some relief for sciatica symptoms.

 

Sources

Anastasi, L. (2023, January 13). Medieval History – Herbal Medicine in the Middle Ages. Medieval History. https://historymedieval.com/herbal-medicine-in-the-middle-ages/

Freeman, J. (2022, August 17). Do not try this at home: Medieval medicine under the spotlight in major new project. University of Cambridge. https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/curious-medieval-medicine

Mason, E. (2015, April 20). 9 weird medieval medicines. History Extra; History Extra. https://www.historyextra.com/period/medieval/9-weird-medieval-medicines/

0Likes
About Author

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
When to Start Panicking about Killer Robots
Articles, today i learned (til)
Making Bad Decisions: The Science of Decision-Making
Story Time, today i learned (til)
A Tiny Frog with a Mighty Voice – The Puerto Rican Coqui
today i learned (til), vintage science
LSD and Scientific Advancement

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.