In other words, we determine the plane of the drug we wish to use by a consideration of the object we desire to attain. The object of the proving is to produce the characteristics of the drug as they are manifest in diseased states.
The comparatively inert substance will produce no symptoms; at best a very few symptoms of low value in the crude state, and these are not characteristic of the drug; either no symptoms are produced, or if perchance a few symptoms are produced they are not strikingly peculiar of the drug. The inert substances are expelled from the body before they reach the dynamis of system, the vital energy.
In the proving of active or corrosive poisons in low or.crude state the same thing is true: they are valueless because the grosser irritating symptoms are the result of mechanical disturbances and the few strikingly characteristic symptoms of the drug are never observed. The corrosives are expelled very quickly in the crude state because of the violence of their action, and so do not influence the vital energy to produce characteristic symptoms; therefore the symptoms that are produced are of little value because they are common to all corrosive poisons.
The susceptibility of the patient or prover must be taken into consideration; this regulates and gives us direction as to the quantity of the drug to be taken. The greater the susceptibility, the less the quantity required to react upon the vital force, for if the organism is overwhelmed suddenly at first we may get only generic symptoms and so fail to obtain the characteristic symptoms and thus fail in our object. On the other hand, if he is only moderately susceptible, we may obtain valuable results from larger doses. Our standard should be ***TO USE THE DOSE AND QUANTITY THAT WILL THOROUGHLY PERMEATE THE ORGANISM AND MAKE ITS ESSENTIAL IMPRESS UPON THE VITAL FORCE AND THUS AFFECT THE FUNCTIONAL SPHERE OF HIS BODY. This is best accomplished when a gradual impress is made, rather than a sudden onslaught, for then we would bring into the picture alarm because of violent functional disturbances, which certainly defeats our object. So when the first dose is followed by no marked symptoms, a second dose may be given, and then a period of waiting until some symptoms appear. If after the interval of waiting there is no appearance of symptoms, another dose may be given. By this gradual introduction of the drug the system becomes pervaded by its action and tolerates it, and responds to its specific impression and we obtain its characteristics.
In carrying out the provings by the higher potencies only the very susceptible will respond; this is no reflection upon the value of the provings made from the higher potencies, because we only obtain the characteristics of the remedy from such provings. The fact that the more obtuse prover does not respond does not have any weight, for under any potency proving he will only produce generic symptoms -symptoms held in common with the whole family we are proving. This contributes nothing to the knowledge of the drug which will be of value in the cure of disease. Neither does the fact that the obtuse prover does not respond to develop a proving of the remedy influence the value of the drug in its application to the sick, for when the vital energy is disturbed, it is far more susceptible to influence from a drug than when the vital energy is in a state of equilibrium. From the very nature of the case, symptoms produced from the higher potencies are genuine and are of the highest value as a curative agent.
The repetition of the dose will be governed by the nature of the drug and the reaction of the vital energy. Some drugs, like *Silica or *Lycopodium, are slow in action and should be administered at long intervals, while others are quick to give a reaction and shorter in their duration. However, this is an absolutely dependable rule: ***NEVER REPEAT THE DOSE WHILE SYMPTOMS ARE MANIFEST FROM THE DOSE ALREADY TAKEN. This is the same rule applied to the proving as governs the administration of the remedy in the cure of sickness: ***NEVER REPEAT YOUR REMEDY SO LONG AS IT CONTINUES TO ACT. The reason is as obvious in one case as in the other. It is absolutely essential to obtain a proving of real value and integrity as showing forth the characteristics of the drug and the order of the symptoms in their development.
Symptoms are produced in sequences, and it is important to now the first effects as shown in the symptoms, the sequence of their appearance and their duration; and a repetition of the dose defeats our purpose by upsetting this sequence, and continued repetition destroys the knowledge of the latest symptoms to appear, which are always the most valuable because they are the most characteristic, and farthest removed from possible pathogenetic action.
The duty of recording the symptoms in their order of appearance is very important, and quite as important is the duty of recording the concomitant symptoms, their associates, which ***WHILE SEEMINGLY UNRELATED TO THE CASE, YET BEAR A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP IN THAT THEY APPEAR AT THE SAME TIME AND IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE OTHER SYMPTOMS.
*The value of the symptoms record is largely based upon the order of appearance of symptoms and their associated or concomitant symptoms. The farther removed the symptom appears from the dose the more important its value. Not all symptoms are of equal value, so that much valuable data is added to the proving by carefully observing the sequences.
The prover should be a faithful recorder of symptoms, not only their sequence, but he must be very explicit as to the character of all sensations: pain, dull, stinging, piercing, throbbing, etc. The exact locality of the sensations, such as pain, must be given; if it is shooting, where it starts and the direction of its course; if it is one-sided, in what direction does it move, or does it go to the other side? If so, does it remain there or return to the first side? Not the least important of the sensations are those which are difficult to describe directly, and can only be given by the introduction, “sensation as if…”. It is these which make the characteristic proving, and are identification marks of the remedy.
Remember, all symptoms have location, sensation, and the aggravations and ameliorations, plus their concomitants; these should all be recorded faithfully in every proving. Too much care cannot be exercised in recording the direction of symptoms, the times of aggravation and amelioration, the effect of atmospheric changes, and positions taken by the patient in order to obtain relief. We must record the effects of position upon the patient, both for aggravation and amelioration; the position he takes in sleep; what effects are produced from standing, walking, sitting, lying; if changes are produced while lying on the right side, the left side, or back; what effect motion or rest has upon his symptoms, and especially the changes of posture, such as rising up or lying down or from continued motion; the particular kind of motion that affects him. How do eating and drinking affect him? How does sleeping affect him? How do these things affect him at the time, and afterwards, and in relation to each other? What is the condition produced by being in the presence of associates, or in crowds, or by being alone? We must consider everything that tends to increase or diminish the patient’s equilibrium.
Too much emphasis cannot be placed upon the faithful recording of these manifestations, because it is in these aggravations and ameliorations and attending circumstances that we find the characteristics that make the drug of value as a curative agent.
One is struck with the thoroughness of Hahnemann and the earlier provers, by the great amount of detail with which the records of those provings were made in comparison with many of the newer provings, and this is the reason why the older provings are of so much value. They produce the expression of the drug, the very living elements of the proving. All the facts were recorded; and this we must remember in our own work of recording, that all facts must be recorded, for we are not to judge what is essential or what is insignificant; we do not know when some apparently insignificant symptom may become of much value in the grand total of a complete symptomatology.
In making the record of many provings of the same drug there is an inclination to omit as insignificant a symptom recorded by only one prover, yet, like the 3 a.m. cough of *Kali carb., this one symptom may be of inestimable value in prescribing. Had this symptom not been recorded because it was considered insignificant, having appeared in but one record, how much would have been lost to the record of *Kali carb.!
Objective symptoms play but a small part in the record, for they are of little value as curative symptoms. However, to be complete the record should embrace these symptoms.
The great essential to be required of the prover is to record all symptoms faithfully; then the physician can give the proper value to the finished record, remembering always that the real and only object of a proving is to record a living personality whom we still we will be able to recognize when we meet in the sick room.
