An attempt was made in 1828 by Dr. von Wedekind to induce his brethren to prove medicines, in order to lay a sure foundation for the Materia Medica; but his eloquence was of little avail to overcome the apathy of his brethren on that subject, and with the exception of a miserable attempt on the part of a few to swallow some doses of hepar sulphuris and colchicum, nothing resulted from Wedekind’s recommendation. So also Professor Martin of Jena attempted in 1844 to found a society for the purpose of making physiological experiments with medicines, but this too came to naught.
A bolder and more sustained effort was made a few years ago by the Society of Vienna Physicians to prove remedies, and a good many medicines were tested by a number of different individuals; but the committee who had the drawing up of the report of the results of the trials cut down the symptoms of each prover in a most arbitrary manner, and only recorded such symptoms as were common to all or most of the experiments. The experiments, such as they are, given in the British Journal of Homoeopathy, vol. v. p. 265. One effect they had was to convert one of the provers to homoeopathy, which was not at all the result desiderated by the Society, and accordingly they did their best to discountenance any further physiological provings, for fear of more defections.
The only other provings by allopathists with which I am acquainted are those by the followers of Rademacher, or the adherents of the so-called school of experimental medicine. Their experiments with iron are very worthy of note, and will be found detailed in the British Journal of Homoeopathy, vol. ix. p. 237.
Among recent allopathic writers who have spoken favourably of of physiological experimentation I may mention Jonathan Pereira, who says, in his work on Materia Medica, that the homoeopaths are perfectly right in assuming that the study of the effects of medicines on the healthy body is the only way in which the pure pathogenetic action of drugs can be ascertained; for when we administer our medicines to patients, the symptoms of the disease present become mixed up with those that the drug is capable of producing, and the latter can seldom be distinguished with any degree of clearness or certainty.
In the medical section of the French Scientific Congress, held at Strasburg in 1842, Professor Forget, President, the following resolution was passed :- “The medical section are unanimously of opinion that experiments with medicines on healthy individuals are, in the present state of medical science, of urgent necessity for physiology and therapeutics.” (Brit. Journ. of Hom., i.p. 198). The urgency of the necessity was hot, however, so great as to induce the respective members to institute such experiments on their own precious persons. They thought that they fulfilled their duty by passing this resolution, and doubtless forthwith began to hope, with Mr. Micawber, that “something would turn up.”
In like manner Dr. Forbes, in his onslaught upon homoeopathy, indicates as one of the desiderated of medicine, “to reconsider and study afresh the physiological and curative effects of all our therapeutics agents, with a view to obtain more positive results than we now possess.” And so with many other clear-headed allopathists, from Haller down to Forbes; they have, like the finger-post, indicated the way, but not trod it themselves. Knowing well work there was to be done, they have till continued enthralled in the trammels of a degrading and antiquated routine, without making an effort for their release. As Dan. O’ Connell used to say:
“Hereditary bondsmen, know ye not
Who would be free themselves must strike the blow?.”
Of course they know this well enough, but there are many reasons why their energetic resolutions and recommendations were never followed up by any or only by luke-warm acts. The immensity of the task, the consciousness of the revolutionizing effect it would have on old medicine, the uncertainty as to whither it might lead them, the knowledge that they would thereby seem to be following in the steps of the homoeopaths, whom they affected to despise, and who have for many years been engaged in the work; the dread that their labours might go to fortify the hands of the enemy, and only weaken their own strongholds, as was the case with Jorg and his provings-all these circumstances combined to deter those who saw what ought to be done from making a vigorous and sustained effort to do it.
It may at first sight appear strange that medical men of the old school have been os remiss in all ages in endeavouring to discover the physiological action of medicines, the powers of the tools they were to use in that most difficult of arts, the restoration of the sick to health; but if we reflect a little, we shall perceive that their remissness on this point is very easily accounted for. For if we examine the question narrowly, we shall find some difficulty in discovering what the allopathist, as such, could hope to gain by such experiments. His practice is for the most part confined to purging, vomiting, salivating, sweating, and producing diuresis, and assuredly he has a sufficiency of purgatives, emetics, sialagogues, diaphoretics, and diuretics; or else he wishes to create an eruption or an inflammation on the skin, a counter-irritation as he calls if, and he has no lack of sinapisms, epispastics, moxas, and cauteries, actual and potential; or he wishes to tap off the life-blood, and the best way he can test his lancet, cupping instruments and leeches is to flesh them in his patient’s body. There are only two possible ways in which he can imagine that the proving of medicines on the healthy can be of use of him-first, by enabling him to determine the dose that can be given with safely; and even this is problematical, for he knows very well that a dose that will act on a person in health will not necessarily act all all, or may perhaps act much too violently, on a diseased person. The other use that he might expect to derive from knowing the positive action of medicines is in cases where, from the suppression of some less important affection, one of more serious nature has ensued; thus he would often like to possess a remedy that could restore a fit of a piles or the gout, bring back all eruption on the skin, an ulcer, or the like; but the occasions when he would desire to do this are so rare, that the infinite trouble of pure experimentation would be much too great for the infinitely small gain he would reap from it. As regards the discovery of specifics by this method, it would be hard to persuade him that such could be affected, for with his therapeutic formula, contraria contrariis, how can be imagine the contraria of such diseases as gout, ague, epilepsy, small-pox, cholera, tic, and the like?. To my mind it is perfectly obvious that physiological experimentation by allopathists, though it may be undertaken in a fit of enthusiasm, will soon be dropped with the self-imposed question of cui bono? or else it will lead to the adoption of the therapeutic rule similia similibus.
The circumstances are quite altered when the medical man accepts as his rule of guidance, in the employment of medicines for diseases, a law like Hahnemann’s similia similibus, for this very formula implies that we should first ascertain the simile to the disease; in other words, the medicinal agent that has an absolute inherent power of causing an affection similar to the disease. Now it is obvious that such absolute power must be exercised on the healthy, body, for if it were only on the disease body, the power would be relative and not absolute, extrinsic and not intrinsic. Physiological proving was therefore the inevitable corollary from the homoeopathic therapeutic law.
Among those who have written on the subject of physiological experimentation, and who have endeavoured to establish fixed rules for its conduct, one of the most explicit and minute is Dr. G. O. Piper. (Hyg., xii. 481, and xiii.1.) I shall now give a brief resume of his excellent papers on the subject. In order to conduct such provings efficiently, he remarks, we should endeavour to dispossess our minds of all preconceived ideas respecting modes of cure, primary actions, secondary actions, etc. It is best that the experimenter knows not the substances he is taking. It is absolutely necessary to prove one and the same substance on many different persons in order to obtain a through knowledge of its sphere of action. It is of great importance to ascertain the duration of action of a medicine. We cannot a priori determine if a medicinal disease can be infections in its nature or not; this experiment can alone determine. The observations of Dr. Lichtenstadt with respect of the inoculation of the pustules produced by tartar emetic ointment would seem to show that that medicinal disease at least is transmissible. Dr. Piper strongly advises that all homoeopathic physicians should institute physiological provings on themselves, and he bears out Hahnemann in his assertion that the health, in place of ultimately suffering by such provings, is rather on the whole improved by them. Thus Helbig, in his Heraclides, asserts that after proving some medicines he became healthier than he was before. Dr. Piper insists that before commencing to prove medicines, the experimenter should carefully observe himself for a month previously; he should note his daily sensations and carefully register all the abnormalities he observes, and if any of these recur during the period of his experiments, they should not be noted down as symptoms belonging to the medicine. The prover should also carefully attend to the various seasons of the year, and not register as an effect of the medicine may symptoms that were wont to appear spontaneously at any particular season. Drinkers of wine and coffee should begin by leaving off their favourite beverages, and smokers by abandoning their customary weed, the susceptibility for the medicine will thus be highly increased, and the medicinal symptoms will occur with greater precision and more characteristically than they would otherwise do. Those persons are probably the best for undertaking physiological provings who are not in the habit of indulging in the use of any medicinal substance, but who can conduct a proving from beginning to end without having to make any alternation in their diet and regimen. Dr. Piper thinks that the best time for taking the medicine we wish to prove is just before going to bed at night. The secret operations of the medicine will then go on undisturbed while the prover is asleep, and the first active manifestations of abnormal action will be observed on awaking in the morning. At the same time he admits that in order to obtain the full action of the drug, it should be tested in the morning also. As regards the form in which drugs should be proved, Dr. Piper says that in-soluble (mineral) substances should be carefully triturated with nine parts of milk-sugar, and the dose moistened with water just before being taken. Soluble substances should also be taken in the form of powder without milk-sugar, unless the substance is so strong as to require that but very small quantities be taken at a time. Crude vegetable substances should be taken as powders or tinctures, not in watery infusion or decoction, as Hahnemann advises. Extracts are uncertain preparations and should not be used, or if they must be, they should be prepared by the sun’s heat. Conserves are good preparations; prolonged chewing of the substances favours land hastens its action. It is requisite that all the provers use the preparation of the drug.
Robert Ellis Dudgeon practiced at the London Homeopathic Hospital and specialised in Optics.
Robert Ellis Dudgeon wrote Pathogenetic Cyclopaedia 1839, Cure of Pannus by Innoculation, London and Edinburgh Journal of Medical Science 1844, Hahnemann’s Organon, 1849, Lectures on the Theory & Practice of Homeopathy, 1853, Homeopathic Treatment and Prevention of Asiatic Cholera 1847, Hahnemann’s Therapeutic Hints 1847, On Subaqueous Vision, Philosophical Magazine, 1871, The Influence of Homeopathy on General Medical Practice Since the Death of Hahnemann 1874, Repertory of the Homeopathic Materia Medica, 2 vols 1878-81, The Human Eye Its Optical Construction, 1878, Hahnemann’s Materia Medica Pura, 1880, The Sphygmograph, 1882, Materia Medica: Physiological and Applied 1884, Hahnemann the Founder of Scientific Therapeutics 1882, Hahnemann’s Organon 1893 5th Edition, Prolongation of Life 1900, Hahnemann’s Lesser Writing.