The nervous system may become affected and symptoms of neuralgia or neuritis may develop, with many other nerve symptoms. The emotions may be profoundly affected, and symptoms of fear, depression, irritability, poor memory and weeping. In fact, the provers may become very ill and develop symptoms and changes of the normal functioning from the crown of the head to the soles of the feet. It must also be borne in mind that some medicines have particular affinity for certain organs and parts of the body; hence more severe changes and marked symptoms will appear in some organs and not in others.
The provers are also instructed to the physicians in charge of the provings, who checks the physical condition of the provers very carefully, including urinary tests, blood tests, and other laboratory tests if so deemed necessary. The checking and rechecking of provers, their symptoms and conditions, are continued as long as symptoms develop. Of course, the proving is not carried to the point where actual structural changes take place in the organs of the prover, and if he is particularly sensitive and develops marked disturbances of health, the proving is discontinued and an antidotal medicine is administered.
After the proving have been finished, thee physical findings and symptoms reported by the provers are carefully examined, checked, evaluated, classified and grouped according to the part of the body affected and the degree of severity of the symptoms obtained. The result of this work is put together in a systematic order, and from these provings the bulk of the homoeopathic materia medica is made.
Who discovered this method of proving medicine?
Doctor Samuel Hahnemann. He made the first provings on himself and the later his physician students and followers participated in the work.
Who was Doctor Hahnemann?
A scholarly, independent and progressive physician, living and practicing medicine in Germany during the later part of the eighteenth century, and in Paris, during the first part of the ninetieth century.
What induced Doctor Hahnemann to test and prove medicines in this manner?
Samuel Hahnemann was an unusually brilliant student, a deep thinker and investigator of scientific problems. When 12 years of age he was appointed quiz master of in Greek to a class of pupils by the headmaster of a school in which Hahnemann himself was a student. He had mastered several languages early in life, and when a student at the University of Leipsic he supported himself by translating English into German, and as tutor for other students. At the University he majored in chemistry and became known for his remarkable knowledge of this subject; and later revised and improved the German pharmacopoeia.
He studied medicine at Vienna and elsewhere, and after obtaining his medical diploma started to practice medicine in a small town in Saxony, Germany.
He evidently became disillusioned with the system of medicine in vogue and so tried to experiment and improve upon his medical practice and to develop a better use of the medicines. At this time he was translating “Cullen’s” materia medica from English and became particularly interested in what Cullen said about the use of cinchona bark in the treatment of chills and fever. The Spanish sailors brought this bark from Peru with a tale of its wonderful curative properties in a disease we call malaria, but was then called chills and fever.
Hahnemann obtained some of this bark and made an infusion of it. He took several doses a day of this infusion and was said to have developed fever and temperature, but no chills. However, this experiment gave Hahnemann a new idea in medicine and he continued to prove not only cinchona bark but many other medicines on himself and his physician friends. After this discovery he moved to Leipsic and became connected with the University as a professor of medicine and taught his newly discovered principle of “similia similibus curantur”.
Did Samuel Hahnemann actually discover the principle of similia or was this principle known before Hahnemann’s time?
Yes, the principle of similia similibus curantur was taught by the Greek scholar and philosopher Hippocrates, called the father of medicine. With Hahnemann’s knowledge of the Greek language it is fair to suppose that he was familiar with the writing of Hippocrates and the principle of similia; but it belonged to Samuel Hahnemann to make a practical and scientific application of this principle in medicine.
Have any provings been made since Hahnemann’s time?
Yes, many, provings of re-provings of medicine and remedies have been made since Hahnemann’s time, but the bulk of the provings were made by Hahnemann, his students and associate physicians. The last proving I know of was made in Brooklyn, N.Y., during the spring of 1897, by Doctors Walter M. James and Fincke; they proved X-rays in the sixth centesimal potency.
Have crude drugs and medicines been used in all provings, or have potentized medicines also been used?
No, all provings have not been made with crude drugs and medicine. The early provings of Hahnemann and his students were naturally made with crude drugs and medicines, but as they advanced in the study of the subject they used dilutions and potencies in provings.
Have potentized medicines the power of derange, upset or disrupt the normal functional activity of the body and cause symptoms of disease?
Yes, potentized medicines have the power to disturb human health and to bring out deep and long-lasting symptoms on the provers. Natrum mur or sodium chloride was proven by the Austrian Provers Union at Vienna some times in the nineteenth century, in the thirtieth centesimal potency. These provers obtained better, clear-cut and long-lasting symptoms from this medicine in the thirtieth than in the lower potencies from the earlier provings.
When Doctors James and Fincke proved the X-rays in 1897 in thee sixth centesimal potency, this potency caused deep- acting and long-lasting symptoms in some of the provers. In fact, so severe were the symptoms that it took years for some of the provers to overcome the effects the provings. However, it is self-evident that as long as high and still higher potencies the potential energy to cure or neutralize symptoms of severe diseases in a patient, they certainly have the power to disturb normal health when administered according to definite rules and regulations.
Are these provings still dependable guided for the selection of the curative medicine in the treatment of thee sick?
Yes, absolutely; they have stood the clinical tests at the besides in the treatment of a great variety of diseases, and wherever there has been a comparative study between the result of homoeopathic medicines and that of crude drugs in the same disease, the percentage of cures has always been on the homoeopathic side. This is true in the treatment of acute diseases. In thee treatment of obscure chronic diseases and disorders, they have given splendid results when applied skilfully according to the rules governing the operation of potentized medicines in relation to sickness and disease.
The scientific aspect of homoeopathy and its relation to physical science and the finer forces in nature.
Are the homoeopathic provings a scientific method of testing medicines on well people before using them in the treatment of sickness and disease?
Yes, they are, butt befores answering this question in detail let us first ask another question:
What is science?
Noah Webster says:” Science is knowledge based on facts.” “Knowledge regarding any one department of mind or matter, co- ordinated, arranged and systematized in their groupings and classifications.” “Knowledge amassed, severely tested, co- ordinated and systematized especially regarding those wide generalities, called the laws of nature”.
How does the homoeopathic method of proving drugs and medicines measures up to the above definition of science?
It measures up perfectly; in fact, it fulfills all the above requirements for a scientific procedures.
First, because the provings bring us knowledge of the individual human reactions to drugs and medicines, and this knowledge is based on facts.
Second, because from these reactions we obtain knowledge based on observing, co-ordinating and systematizing the effects of drugs and medicines on human beings.
Third, because the results of these reactions are recorded and systematized according to the degree of reaction and the part of the body affected.
Fourth, because of the foregoing facts we feel justified in asserting that he homoeopathic method of proving medicines on well people is correct in principle and scientific in procedure; and for these reasons is entitled to the respect and thorough investigation of all students of medicine who are sincerely interested in the subject of medicine in its relation to sickness and disease.
What is the main object in proving that the homoeopathic method of testing medicine is scientific?
The main object is to prove to physicians and others who do not understand the basic principles of homoeopathy, that this system of medicine is not only scientific but effective and dependable in the treatment of the sick, when used according to the laws which govern its relation to ill health and disease. Physicians and many others who have not had the opportunity to investigate these principles have erroneous conceptions of the value of the homoeopathic system of medicine. Most of them think that the postulates of the homoeopathic school are ridiculous, preposterous and absolutely unscientific; that potentized medicines are worthless, harmless and have absolutely no value in the treatment of the sick; and that when patients get well under homoeopathic medicines they would get well anyway without medicine.
