Tendency to Re-Prove Our Mat Med

Dr. Kent’s advice on re- proving of the homeopathic medicine. Here he advised that drug reproving should be genuine as per the direction given by Dr. Hahnemann, only then we can add the symptoms of drugs in original text of our materia medica….

Modern Tendency to Re-Prove Our Materia Medica There is a general call for our old remedies to be reproved; but nothing has been done as yet to improve any of the old provings made in the early days. We need not expect our Materia Medica to grow except in the hands of good observers.

When we have noted all that can be observed by the physician himself, and felt and observed by the prover, and observed by companions, we have gathered about all that is worth knowing for the purpose of prescribing.

Provers do not push a drug until tissue changes are found, hence the expert examinations have been useless and these laboratory examinations do not add to the information that is desired either in the patient or the prover. The simple- minded patients and provers give us the best symptoms for use. The so-called pathological prescribing is all done on clinical symptoms or on the toxic effect of drugs, yet most of the pathological prescribers are so ignorant of the sources of symptoms that they oppose prescribing on clinical symptoms as a basis of the prescription. Such ignorance is characteristic of mongrelism throughout.

In the wonderful re-proving of Belladonna, absolutely nothing was added to the grand old Belladonna. Many have urged that re-proving be made under the eye of specialists with all laboratory tests, blood tests, blood pressure, etc., thinking that this highly scientific procedure and display would cause Homoeopathy to be accepted by the representatives of traditional medicine. In my opinion we would only subject ourselves to ridicule. If we would think more of the grand old method of proving followed by Hahnemann, our minds would be clearer as to what would be best to record-what would be needed. These so-called modern provers are ignorant of the philosophy, and therefore do not know what is required for a successful study of a drug, nor study of a sick man for a successful prescription. The modern demands for proving reveal complete ignorance of the requirements for prescribing. They aim at bringing forth the common symptoms and neglecting the symptoms that characterize the patient. This defect is stamped upon all modern provings. Materia Medica students should master the ORGANON first and make provings later. The methods of Hahnemann have never been improved. Let all compare the modern provings with Hahnemann’s provings and note the difference.

Our well-proved remedies do not need re-proving. Many of our scantily-proved drugs should have further provings, but in the same method followed by Hahnemann. Remedies should be proved in low, medium and high potencies. As soon as the prover begins to experience the symptoms, administration of the drug should be stopped until there is no manifestation of drug action, else confusion follows. The confusion has spoiled many otherwise good provings.

James Tyler Kent
James Tyler Kent (1849–1916) was an American physician. Prior to his involvement with homeopathy, Kent had practiced conventional medicine in St. Louis, Missouri. He discovered and "converted" to homeopathy as a result of his wife's recovery from a serious ailment using homeopathic methods.
In 1881, Kent accepted a position as professor of anatomy at the Homeopathic College of Missouri, an institution with which he remained affiliated until 1888. In 1890, Kent moved to Pennsylvania to take a position as Dean of Professors at the Post-Graduate Homeopathic Medical School of Philadelphia. In 1897 Kent published his magnum opus, Repertory of the Homœopathic Materia Medica. Kent moved to Chicago in 1903, where he taught at Hahnemann Medical College.