Provers


Tabacum and Sabadilla each produce a characteristic yet different effect upon smooth muscles; that a mixture of the two drugs also produces a definite effect yet totally different from that obtained from using either remedy alone….


Relative importance

Human (old, young, male, female) 90 Percent

Animals (old, young, male, female) 9 Percent

Plants 1 Percent

100 Percent

Formerly I had only two two classes – human and animals- and I made the per cent 95 and 5; but since listening to that interesting and instructive lecture on July 6th, delivered by Sir Jagadis Bose, I have added plants, and from further study of proving on animals I have increased the per cent from 5 to 9.

Having decided upon our provers, the next question is : How to use them to the best advantage? What instructions shall we given them? What shall we have them do or not do? The first order by the superintendent to provers should be : Do not in any way change your manner of living. Why? Did any of you ever have for a patient, one suffering from delirium tremens or from a tobacco, heart, and cut out his alcohol or tobacco? If so, did you notice the appearance of new symptoms as the result? For that reason let the addict drink, let the smoker smoke, let the provers lie in bed till breakfast is served, if that has been their habit, etc., etc.,

The second step is to give each prover a notebook identified by a numeral, not by the provers name. In this notebook, which I have designated No. I, have the prover give his family and personal history. Make the history as complete as possible.

Should the prover write : Mother died at 38 of dropsy,: find out if possible whether the dropsy was due to a cardiac, or hepatic condition. And so with all causes, trace them to their source. The histories having been obtained, begin the next morning by having the prover write how he has slept. If sleepless, why, i.e., from pain over-activity of the mind, or what not. Then have him write what he had to eat at each meal. And finally, write in full any sensation experienced during the day with their modalities.

If the provers be medical students, which are the best, have them go to the head of every department for examination and assistance in recording their condition. Keep up this preliminary proving for four or five days till there have been two days with similar results, i. e., without any new symptoms. Have the symptoms numbered as they appear – 1,2,3,4 etc.

Now give the human provers the drug, having one control for every six provers who take the drug. Have the provers record in notebook No. II, as you did in notebook No.I, every symptom and condition. Have the human provers assisted by the specialists in every particular. Have both prover give his family and personal history. Make in the animals and plants. This being done, compare the two notebook and cut out every symptom from No.II which appears in NO.I.

At this point I want to give three reasons why I evaluate a symptom obtained from a human ten times as great as one obtained from animals.

First : Animals cannot talk and give their symptoms. They may howl or sequel, snap or bite, roll over, run, etc., etc.,, but they cannot tell us in words whether the pains are dull or sharp, constant or intermittent, etc., etc. They cannot tell us whether or not they are nauseated or dizzy; whether their vision is clear or clouded, whether there are noises in the ears, and if so, whether they are roaring, ringing, hissing, etc. At no time are they able to express, in words, any abnormal, unnatural condition of any tissue or organ of their body.

Second : Animals cannot, in words give us any modalities, e. g., they cannot say that a toothache is relieved by a drink of cold water; whether a cough is worse in the open air; whether a sharp, sticking pain is better from motion, or whether a throbbing, pounding headache is better or worse from having the head high or low. And these modalities of as symptom, as you all know, have much to do with determining the value (rank) of a symptom, or group of symptoms, as we will show you later on.

Third : Animals cannot be observed as well without changing their method of living. We must enclose them for observation. We can secure faeces for examination easily enough, but cannot the urine.

To illustrate and substantiate my statement, let me relate an experience I had while making an experiment. And in passing, let me say that of all the statements I have heard on this trip August Biers, Experiences is far better than experiment, made the greatest impression upon me.

I adjusted a urinal on a male dog so as to get the total amount of urine for testing. The dog passed no urine for 24 hours, but ate and drank as usual. Forty-eight hours passed, but no urine passed. The dog then showed a good deal of distress by being constantly on the move and howling. His condition grew worse till at the end of seventy-five hours he died.

Post mortem revealed the fact that there had been retention, not suppression of urine, that the walls of the bladder become thinned, also inflamed, and finally ruptured. There was marked peritonitis which apparently caused death. I state this case not merely for the purpose of showing the effects of change of habit in this prover, but to show how difficult it is to find the real cause of an unnatural or abnormal condition.

Again to illustrate, suppose we had been giving this dog Belladonna; how easy and natural it would have been to have said : Dog died of peritonitis, caused by urine in the abdominal cavity, caused by a distended bladder caused by the action of Belladonna on the terminal filaments of the nerve supplying the neck of the bladder.

But now, for the sake of letting you get the viewpoint of those who have experimented on animals much more than I have, let me quote Professor A. E. Hinsdale, whom I had the honor of teaching Materia Medica during his Junior year.

I quote him extensively because he not only states the advantages of animals provings but also the disadvantages and folly of alternating remedies, a vicious practice to which I have often called attention and will refer to in another chapter.

Homoeopathists believed that remedies should be given singly and uncombined. Mixtures of drugs or alternating remedies cannot be justified. In order to show this experimentally the following experiment was performed : A strip of small intestine from a rabbit was mounted in oxygenated Lockes solution at a temperature of 38* C. and then subjected to the influence of a very dilute solution of Tabacum.

The effect of the drug immediately manifested itself and consisted of a pronounced stimulation and an increase in tone. Gradually the stimulation became less pronounced but the increased tonicity remained. Another strip of smooth muscles, prepared in the same manner as the first, was subjected to the action of Sabadilla. An immediate effect was produced, presenting an entirely different picture from that obtained by the use of Tabacum.

Both drugs caused an immediate pronounced stimulation, but in the case of Sabadilla the increase in tone was much more marked and persistent and it was also characterized by extreme irregularity. Both drugs were used in the same degree of strength or dilution, consequently the difference in their effects can only be attributed to inherent properties and not to differences in the concentrations employed.

Sabadilla and Tabacum were employed in the experiments because both drugs have a similar symptomatology, relative to the intestinal tract and indications in diarrhoea. For this reason there might be a tendency among careless prescribers to alternate them or to use mixtures of the two remedies in cases when one or the other seems indicated.

A third experiment was done upon another strip of small intestine using a mixture of equal parts of the two drugs, each present in the same concentration as was employed before. A result was obtained totally different from any of the preceding. This single initial stimulation was obtained but was accompanied by many others of practically the same intensity. The whole effect was more uniform and constant that any results following the use of the drugs singly. The increase in tone was constant and practically uniform and irregularities in the tone were not prominently marked.

It thus appears that Tabacum and Sabadilla each produce a characteristic yet different effect upon smooth muscles; that a mixture of the two drugs also produces a definite effect yet totally different from that obtained from using either remedy alone. This being the case it is difficult to se how the remedies given together, or alternated, could prove effective in homoeopathic practice.

The tracing obtained from Tabacum may be said to represent the symptoms upon which the remedy is prescribed. The tracing obtained from Sabadilla has the same meaning and no other. Obviously Tabacum cannot be indicated when Sabadilla is the remedy,. not can Sabadilla prove effective upon Tabacum indications. The physical basis for the indications of each remedy may be entirely different, hence there must be a difference in the symptoms or indications calling for the one remedy as compared to the other. If both remedies are given together a physical basis for symptoms is produced, but we do not know accurately what the indications or symptoms thus resulting would be.

George Royal
George Royal M. D, born July 15, 1853, graduated New York Homœopathic Medical College 1882, served as president of the American Institute of Homœopathy, professor of materia medica and therapeutics, and also dean of the College of Homœopathic Medicine of the State University of Iowa.