INTRODUCTION

Homoeopathy is a specialised system of therapeutics based on the law of healing - Similia Similibus Curentur which means ‘let likes be treated by likes’.

Homoeopathy offers a life of service to humanity and it is the only method of healing that surely sets the sick person on the permanent road to recovery.

Experimentation of a drug on healthy human beings to ascertain its pathogenetic properties is peculiar to the art & science of homoeopathy. These pathogenetic recordings form the foundation and basis of Homoeopathic Materia Medica and selection of Homoeopathic similimum.

Every Homoeopathic prescription is based on a comparison between the portrait of the disease and the drug picture obtained through drug proving. The law of Similars states that any substance which can produce a totality of symptoms in a healthy human being can cure that totality of symptoms in a sick human being.

Ever since the first drug proving of CINCHONA by Dr. Hahnemann the methodology of drug proving have been improved & undergone many modifications. Hahnemann’s discovery of dynamisation of medicines is of the greatest importance to the development of the methodology of drug proving. By drug dynamisation the therapeutic virtue of crude drugs are activated, the toxicity of poisonous substances are annulled and the inert substances are aroused to activity so that the proving becomes more effective.

Proving of drugs on healthy human beings is a superior method when compared to proving on animals or sick persons. The effects of drugs on animals & human beings are different. Subjective symptoms cannot be studied in animals. An attempt to study the action of drugs on sick persons defeats its own purpose because the positive action of a drug is liable to be vitiated by the already existing disease in the organism.

Now the Homoeopathic Materia Medica is enriched with the provings of a vast number of drugs from all sources i.e. from vegetable kingdom, animal kingdom, minerals, nosodes, sarcodes, imporadablia & synthetic sources.

The plant kingdom is the largest source of Homoeopathic medicines. A continuing supply of high quality provings is essential for the progress of Homoeopathy. A good many Homoeopathic remedies are now being prepared from indigenous plants & herbs of India. The medicinal use of herbs & plants are mentioned in the Rig-Veda & widely used in Ayurvedic system of Medicine. Many of these drugs after proving on healthy human beings & used homoeopathically have found to effect magnificent cures. It is the duty of homoeopathic physician of India to make homoeopathic provings of these indigenous drugs & their by enrich our Materia Medica.

This is a humble effort made by me to homoeopathically prove Trachyspermum ammi, a well known Ayurvedic medicine which is commonly known as ‘Ayamodakam’. It is an aphrodisiac, anthelmintic, carminative & laxative. It is widely used in Ayurvedic medicine in the treatment for ascites, abdominal tumours, and enlargement of the spleen, piles, vomiting, abdominal pains, biliousness, toothache & good for the heart.

The Homoeopathic drug proving of Trachyspermum ammi helps to unfold the therapeutic virtues of the drug, so that after repeated provings & clinical verifications, it can be added to our homoeopathic Materia Medica and can be prescribed to the sick according to homoeopathic principles.

“We are here to add what we can to,

Not to get what we can from, LIFE”

                                                             - William Osler

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES 

v To introduce a new drug (Trachyspermum ammi) into Homoeopathic Materia Medica.

v To elicit the symptomatology of the same through Homoeopathic drug proving.

v To substantiate the symptomatology of Trachyspermum ammi with synthesis Repertory.  

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

THE CONCEPT OF DRUG PROVING

Drug proving is the method for ascertaining the pathogenetic power (disease producing) of drugs and hence the method for ascertaining the curative power of drugs. Drugs are substances which possess the power of altering when used on human system (body, mind and vital force). In health they can produce illness and when used correctly in illness can restore us to health.

Proving ^{(5, 9, 10, 25, 48, 50 & 85)} is a commonly used word in Homoeopathy. It is derived from the German word ‘Prufung’, which Hahnemann used for referring to Homoeopathic drug experiments (Trials) on healthy human volunteers. This word when translated into English means Trial.

Hahnemann states in the aphorism 105 0f the Organon of Medicine, 6^th edition as -

          "The second point of the business of a true physician relates to acquiring a knowledge of the instruments intended for the cure of the natural diseases, investigating the pathogenetic power of the medicines, in order, when called on to cure, to be able to select from among them, one, from the list of whose symptoms an artificial disease may be constructed, as similar as possible to the totality of the principle symptoms of the natural disease sought to be cured."

Homoeopathic drug proving is a process in which the medicinal substance is administered in a systematic way to the healthy human beings over a period of days, just sufficient to initiate a reaction in the vital principle of the human economy and to record the pathogenesis produced by them on the provers. Carefully conducted Homoeopathic Drug proving on a healthy human being furnishes the true picture & knowledge of a drug that forms the base for the selection of the similimum. .

EVOLUTION OF THE CONCEPT OF DRUG PROVING ^{(14, 15, 17, 18, 20)}   

It was Albrecht von Haller, who besides Hahnemann saw the necessity of this genuine mode of testing medicines for their pure and peculiar effects in deranging the health of man, in order to learn what morbid state each medicine is capable of curing (footnote to aphorism 108). 

Haller said - "Indeed, a medicine must first of all be assayed in a healthy body, without any foreign admixture. When the odour and taste have been examined, a small dose must be taken and attention must be paid to every change that occurs, to the pulse, the temperature, respiration and excretions. Then having examined the symptoms encountered in the healthy person, one may proceed to trials in the body of a sick person." 

Hahnemann was competent in different languages (he knew 14 languages) and used to translate many works of considerable significance. In 1790 while translating “A treatise on Materia Medica” (second volume)   by Dr. William Cullen who was a leading teacher, chemist & Physician in Edinburgh, from English to German language, Hahnemann came across the statement made by Dr Cullen in the book regarding the action of Cinchona bark in the cure of ague. i.e., by virtue of bitterness and the tonic effect on the stomach, the drug cured ague. Dr. Cullen was the authority of Materia Medica on that time. But this explanation did not satisfy Hahnemann as there were plenty of bitter drugs but not possessing the ague curative power. He thought of testing the positive action of cinchona bark on his own body.

Hahnemann therefore resolved to ascertain, by the natural method of experience, wherein lay the power of cinchona bark to allay intermittent fever.  He says -

          "I took for several days, as an experiment, four drachms of good Cinchona twice daily.  'My feet and finger tips, etc at first became cold; I became languid and drowsy; then my heart began to palpate, my pulse became hard and quick; an intolerable anxiety and trembling (but without a rigor), prostration in all the limbs, then pulsation in the head, redness of the cheeks, thirst; briefly, all the symptoms usually associated with intermittent fever appeared in succession, yet without the actual rigour.  To sum up: all those symptoms which to me are typical of intermittent fever, as the stupefaction of the senses, a kind of rigidity of all joints, but above all the numb, disagreeable sensation which seems to have its seat in the periosteum over all the bones of the body - all made their appearance. This paroxysm lasted from two to three hours every time, and recurred when I repeated the dose, not otherwise. I discontinued the medicine and I was once more in good health'."

          i.e., Hahnemann experienced symptoms similar to ague after taking this drug. He had discovered a great principle – The drugs cure diseases that it can produce on a healthy person. This event led to the development of a new therapeutic system – Homoeopathy. Drug after drug, specific after specific was tested by Hahnemann on himself and on his family and friends, all with one result - each remedy of recognized specific power excited a spurious disease resembling that for which it was considered specific.  He verified his discoveries and observations by exploring volumes of recorded experiments on Materia Medica and history of poisonings. 

Hahnemann made the induction that diseases which were cured by medicines are by the virtue of the power of the medicines to produce symptoms similar to those of diseases which it cured. After six years of careful study & observations he formulated the principle “Similia similibus curentur” ^{(16 & 17)} – Let likes be treated by likes.

He published an article in 1796 in Hufeland’s journal under the title “An essay on a new principle for ascertaining the curative power of drugs” in which he propounded the Homoeopathic therapeutic rule. In a few years more he was able to give an array of medicinal substances whose pure pathogenetic action he had ascertained by experiments on himself, his family & few friends. The results of the laborious & pains taking experiments were published in 1805 in “Fragmenta De Viribus Medica mentorum positivis sive Insano Corporo Humano observatis”. It is the first published Materia Medica by Dr. Samual Hahnemann. It was in Latin & published at Lepsic and contains the pathogenesis of 27 drugs.

Later in the same year he published his celebrated essay called “The Medicine of Experience” & in this essay he details at length how experiments with medicinal substance are done in order to ascertain their pathogenetic effects.

After 6 years, in 1811 appeared the first volume of “Materia Medica Pura” containing 12 medicines. Volume II in 1816 with 8 medicines; Volume III in 1817 with 8 medicines; Volume IV in 1818 with 12 medicines, Volume V in 1819 with 11 medicines & Volume VI in 1821 with 10 medicines, of these medicines 22 were transferred from the Fragmenta.

Later Die Chronischen kranheiten (The Chronic Diseases, their peculiar nature & their Homoeopathic cure 1835 – 1839) was published which contained 47 medicines.

Hahnemann conducted repeated experimental drug studies on himself & 64 Volunteers whose names were listed in his Materia Medica Pura. In total he investigated 99 remedies over a period of about half a century, establishing the method which has came to be known as Proving(or testing) Medicines.

PROVING GUIDELINES AS PER ORGANON OF MEDICINE - SIXTH EDITION ^{(2, 50)}Aphorisms 105 - 145

For the selection of a suitable homoeopathic remedy for the natural diseases, the whole pathogenetic powers of medicines must be known. All the morbid symptoms and alterations in the health that each medicine is capable of producing in a healthy individual must first be observed before administering the similimum. (Aphorism 106) 

METHOD OF PREPARATION OF DRUGS FOR PROVING ⁽⁵⁰⁾

The purity, genuineness and energy of the medicines must be thoroughly assured, and for this purpose (Aphorism 122) 

1. Each of the medicine must be taken in a perfectly simple, unadulterated form. (Aphorism123) 

2. The indigenous plants in the form of freshly expressed juice must be mixed with a little alcohol to prevent its spoiling. (Aphorism 123)

3. Exotic vegetable substances must be prepared in the form of powder or tincture prepared with alcohol when they are in the fresh state and afterwards mixed with a certain proportion of water. (Aphorism 123) 

4. Salts and gums should be dissolved in water just before being taken. (Aphorism 123) 

5. If the plant can only be procured in its dry state, an infusion of it may be made by cutting the herb into small pieces and pouring boiling water on it, so as to extract its medicinal parts.  Immediately after its preparation, it must be swallowed while still warm as all expressed vegetable juices and all aqueous infusions of herbs without the addition of the spirit pass rapidly into fermentation and decomposition whereby all their medicinal properties are lost. (Aphorism 123)

PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES

TO BE TAKEN DURING PROVING⁽⁵⁰⁾

Regarding the medicine to be proved 

* Every medicinal substance must be employed quite alone and perfectly pure without the admixture of any foreign substance and without taking anything else of a medicinal nature the same day, or yet on the subsequent days, or during all the time, the effects of the medicine are to be observed. (Aphorism 124) 

Regarding the prover

(a) During the whole period of the experiment the diet of the prover must be strictly regulated - it should be as much possible destitute of spices, of roots and all salads and herb soups. The diet should be of a purely nutritious and simple character, consisting of green vegetables. Young green peas, green French beans, boiled potatoes and in all cases carrots are allowable, as the least medicinal vegetables. (Aphorism 125) 

(b) The drinks are to be those usually partaken of, as little stimulating as possible. The prover must either be not in the habit of taking pure wine, brandy, coffee or tea or he must have totally abstained for a considerable time previously from the use of these beverages, some of which are stimulating, others medicinal. (Aphorism 125) 

(c) The prover must be pre-eminently trustworthy and conscientious. (Aphorism 126) 

(d) During the whole period of proving he must avoid all overexertion of mind and body, all sorts of dissipation and disturbing passions.

(Aphorism 126) 

(e) He should have no urgent business to distract his attention.

(Aphorism 126) 

(f) He must be self-observing and not be disturbed whilst so engaged. (Aphorism 126)  (g) He must possess a sufficient amount of intelligence to be able to express and describe his sensation in accurate terms.

(Aphorism 126) 

(h) The medicines must be tested on both males and females in order to ascertain especially the changes in the sexual sphere. (Aphorism 127) 

DETERMINATION OF DOSAGE AND ITS DIFFICULTIES –

MODE OF ADMINISTRATION ⁽⁵⁰⁾

Drug proving is not so simple and easy a matter for the following reasons -

* Medicinal substances, in their crude state, do not exhibit nearly the full amount of the powers that lie hidden in them, which they do when they are taken in high dilutions. In this manner, one can investigate the medicinal powers even of substances that are deemed weak. (Aphorism 128) 

* Medicine should be given to the prover, on an empty stomach, daily from four to six very small globules of the thirtieth potency, moistened with a little water or dissolved in more or less water and thoroughly mixed and this is continued for several days. (Aphorism 128)

* If the effects of this dose are but slight, a few more globules may be taken daily, until they become more distinct and stronger and the alterations of the health more conspicuous. (Aphorism 129)

 * All persons are not affected by a medicine in an equally great degree. On the contrary, there is a vast variety in this respect. An apparently weak individual may be scarcely affected by moderate doses of a medicine known to be of a powerful character, whilst he is strongly enough acted on by others of a much weaker kind. (Aphorism 129) 

* On the other hand, there are very robust persons who experience very considerable morbid symptoms from an apparently mild medicine and only slighter symptoms from stronger drugs. (Aphorism 129) 

* As this cannot be known beforehand, it is advisable to commence in every instance with a small dose of the drug and, suitable and requisite, to increase the dose more and more from day to day. (Aphorism 129) 

* If at the very commencement, the first dose administered is sufficiently strong, it is advantageous in a way that the experimenter learns the order of succession of the symptoms and can note down accurately the period at which each occurs, which is very useful in leading to a knowledge of the genius of the medicine, for then the order of the primary actions and alternating actions is observed in the most unambiguous manner.

(Aphorism 130)

* A very moderate dose even often suffices for the experiment, provided only the prover is sufficiently delicate and sensitive and is very attentive to his sensations. (Aphorism 130)

 * The duration of a drug can only be ascertained by a comparison of several experiments. (Aphorism 130) 

RULES FOR AN EXHAUSTIVE PROVING OF THE DRUG ⁽⁵⁰⁾  

1. The drug must be proved, both in dilutions and in massive doses. 

2. If the same medicine is given to the same person to test for several successive days in ever-increasing doses, the various morbid states that the medicine is capable of producing in a general manner is learnt, but not their order of succession; and the second dose often removes curatively, some of the symptoms caused by the previous dose, or develops in its stead an opposite state. Such symptoms should be enclosed in brackets, to mark their ambiguity, until subsequent purer experiments show whether they are the reaction of the organism and secondary action or an alternating action of the medicine. (Aphorism 131) 

3. But when the object is only to ascertain the symptoms, especially of a weak medicinal substance and neither the sequential order of symptoms, nor the duration of action of the drug, then it is to be administered for several successive days, increasing the dose every day. In this manner, the action of an unknown medicine, even of the mildest nature, will be revealed, especially if tested on sensitive persons. (Aphorism 132) 

4. On experiencing any particular sensation, the exact nature of symptoms needs to be determined, as for example - to observe whether, by moving the affected part, by walking in the room or open air, by standing,  sitting or lying the symptom is increased, diminished or removed and whether it returns on again assuming the position in which it was first observed - whether it is altered by eating or drinking, or by another condition, or by speaking, coughing, sneezing or any other action of the body and at the same time to note at what time of the day or night it usually occurs in the most marked manner. In short, what is peculiar to and characteristic of each symptom will become apparent. (Aphorism 133) 

5. All the symptoms peculiar to a medicine do not appear in one person, nor all at once, nor in the same experiment, but some occur in one person chiefly at one time, others again during a subsequent trial. In another person, some other symptoms may appear; moreover they may not recur at the same hour. (Aphorism 134)  The greatest care should be exercised in verifying symptoms by repeated experiments, in order that "imaginary" symptoms as well as chemical and mechanical symptoms may be excluded. 

WHEN A MEDICINE CAN BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY PROVED ⁽⁵⁰⁾

A medicine is regarded to have been completely proved when 

1. Numerous observations are made on suitable persons of both sexes and of various constitutions. (Aphorism 135) 

2. Subsequent experiments can notice little of novel character from its action. (Aphorism 135) 

3. During reproving only the same symptoms are noticed as had been already observed by others. (Aphorism 135) 

4. The symptoms are recorded complete with regard to their sensations, localities, modalities and concomitant factors so that a complete individual picture of the drug disease has been ascertained. 

          Although a medicine on being proved on healthy subjects cannot develop in one person all the alterations of health it is capable of causing, but can only do this when given to many different individuals, varying in their corporeal and mental constitution, yet the tendency to excite all these symptoms in every human being exists in it. (Aphorism 136) 

RELATIVE MERITS OF EMPLOYING LARGE AND MODERATE DOSES OF MEDICINE IN PROVING ⁽⁵⁰⁾

(A)     DISADVANTAGE OF EMPLOYING LARGE DOSES OF MEDICINE IN PROVING

          If excessively large doses are used, there occur at the same time not only a number of secondary effects among the symptoms, but the primary effects also come on in such hurried confusion and with such impetuosity that nothing can be accurately observed. (Aphorism 137) 

(B)      ADVANTAGES OF EMPLOYING MODERATE DOSES OF MEDICINE IN PROVING 

The more moderate the doses of the medicines - so much the more distinctly are the primary effects developed, and only these occur without any admixture of secondary effects. (Aphorism 137) 

RECORDING OF THE PROVING ^{(2, 10, 50)}  

The Day Book

(a) The prover must note down distinctly the sensations, sufferings, accidents and changes of health, he experiences at the time of their occurrence, mentioning the time after the ingestion of the drug when each symptom arose and if it lasts long, the period of its duration, and to keep a day book for the purpose. (Aphorism 139) 

(b) The physician looks over the report in the presence of the prover immediately after the experiment is concluded; or

(c) If the experiment is continued for a long period of time he inspects the day book of the prover daily while everything is still fresh in his memory and questioning him about the exact nature of every one of those circumstances, write down the more precise details and makes each symptom precisely complete with regard to its sensation, localities, modalities and other concomitant factors. (Aphorism 139) 

(d) If the prover is illiterate and cannot note down his alterations in health, he must inform the physician every day of what has occurred to him, and how it took place. What is noted down as authentic information must be chiefly the voluntary narration of the person who makes the experiment, nothing conjectural and not derived from answers to leading questions, to ensure authenticity. (Aphorism 140) 

BUILDING UP OF THE MATERIA MEDICA ^{(2, 10, 50)}   

          If tests with a considerable number of simple medicines have thus been carried out on healthy individuals, and a careful and faithful recording of all the disease elements and symptoms that they are capable of developing is done, then only a true Materia Medica can be built up.

          This will be then a collection of real, pure, reliable modes of action of simple medicinal substances, a volume, wherein is recorded a considerable array of the peculiar changes of the health and symptoms ascertained to belong to each of the powerful medicines, as they were revealed to the attention of the observer, in which the likeliness of the (homoeopathic) disease elements of many natural diseases to be hereafter cured by them are present, which, in a word, contain artificial morbid states, that furnish for the similar natural morbid states the only true, homoeopathic, that is to say, specific, therapeutic instruments for effecting their certain and permanent cure. (Aphorism 143) 

          From such a Materia Medica, everything that is conjectural, all that is mere assertion or imaginary should be strictly excluded. Everything should be the pure language of nature carefully and honestly interrogated. (Aphorism 144) 

          Of a truth it is only by a very considerable store of medicines accurately known in respect of these their pure modes of action in altering the health of man that we can be placed in a position of discover a homoeopathic remedy, a suitable artificial (curative) morbific analogue for each of the infinitely numerous morbid sates in nature, for every malady in the world. Few disease remain for, which a tolerably suitable homoeopathic remedy may not be met with among those now proved as to their pure action, which without much disturbance, restores health in a gentle, sure and permanent manner infinitely more surely and safely than can be effected by all the general and special therapeutics of the old allopathic medical art with its unknown composite remedies, which do but alter and aggravate but cannot cure chronic diseases, and rather retard   than promote recovery from acute diseases and frequently endanger life. (Aphorism 145) 

          We thus build a complete Materia Medica. It is to borne in mind that the daybooks are not the Materia Medica. Not until the masses of symptoms have been analyzed, sifted, classified. Hahnemann called it Materia Medica Pura, because it consisted of the collective statements of the positive and perceptible reactions of the healthy human body recorded in the words of persons acted upon by drugs and admits no misinterpretations with changing medical terminology, altered biological concepts and newer scientific developments. 

DR. CARROLL DUNHAM’S VIEW REGARDING ⁽⁴⁾ 

THE DOSE IN DRUG PROVING

   The symptoms which drugs produce upon the healthy organism vary according to the dose. They may be:  

1.  CHEMICAL- depending on the chemical affinity which exists between the drug and the tissues of the body, and independent of vitality;

2. MECHANICAL (or revolutionary), consisting chiefly in violent efforts on the part of the organism to eject from its cavities the offending substance;

3.  DYNAMIC, contingent upon vitality and resulting from the relations of the peculiar properties of the drug to the susceptibilities of the living, healthy organism.

These dynamic effects may be:  

A.  Generic-such as are common to all the members of a certain class of drugs and which serve to distinguish this class from others, but do not furnish means of distinguishing between different individuals of the same class.

B.  Specific- such as results from the dynamic action of the drug and are peculiar to it. They serve to distinguish a given drug from all others. 

The Specific-dynamic symptoms may be again sub-divided into Central and Peripheral.  

          The Central symptoms appear speedily after the drug is taken, are generally the result of comparatively large doses and, in the case of many drugs, are confined to the alimentary canal and to the organs immediately connected with it.   The  Peripheral  symptoms  appear more tardily, are  generally  the  result  of comparatively   small  doses,  taken  repeatedly  or  allowed  to  act   without interruption for a long period, and appear in the bones, skin, glands, etc., and in  the  coordinated phenomena of life. They are often the manifestations of a dyscrasia or cachexy. Doses which produce central symptoms do not generally produce the peripheral (or at least not until after a long period has elapsed) and vice versa.

          Such are the varieties of symptoms produced by corresponding varieties in the dose. It is hardly necessary to say that they are or always to be distinguished with precision; but the facility with which we are able to recognize them is in proportion to the completeness of our proving. 

          It unquestionably beholdes the homoeopathic physician to have an exhaustive knowledge of the whole sphere of action of his drugs; but, as a prescriber, he must be familiar with the varieties and sub varieties of dynamics effects which we have specified. This knowledge is to be attained in the first place only by drug-proving.  The proving of drugs must then be so conducted as to produce in the greatest possible completeness and clearness, each of these varieties and sub varieties.  This, as has been shown, is to be accomplished by a skilful selection and succession of doses. It is not so simple and easy a matter as it might at first view appear to be: for,  

Firstly: The doses, by which the corresponding varieties of symptoms are produced, differ widely in different varieties.   For example, a half grain  of crude  Nitrate of silver or of Sulphuric acid produces chemical symptoms, while a half grain of Lycopodium  or  of  Silicea produces probably no symptoms at  all.  A  grain  of Arsenic  produces  generic  dynamic  symptoms,  while  ten  grains  of   Natrum muriaticum  may be inert. Forty drops of Bryonia tincture may excite a fair show of specific dynamic symptoms, while forty drops of tincture of Opium will produce generic dynamic symptoms or full narcotism.   

Secondly:  The susceptibility of different provers to the same drug is very different, and the degree of susceptibility which each prover possesses is to be learned only by experiment. For example, one prover will take five hundred drops of Thuja without any effect; another, taking twenty drops, experiences violent specific symptoms.  

Thirdly:  The susceptibility of provers to different preparations of the same drug is very various and apparently capricious.  One record characteristic specific symptoms from large doses of the crude drug, and is not affected by smaller doses; another is acted on by dilutions and not by any quantity of the crude substance.  

The relative power of a drug and susceptibility of the prover being  altogether unknown  until  ascertained by direct experiment, the proving of a new  drug  is therefore a matter of pure experiment in every particular, and it might at first view  be  supposed to be a matter of indifference in what manner  or  with  what doses  the experiment is begun which variety or sub variety of symptoms is  first developed, whether we take heroic doses and develop  chemical symptoms or  small doses and produce peripheral dynamic symptoms; since in either case we should be able by subsequent experiments based on the first, to develop the  complementary symptoms  and thus complete our proving. Experience teaches, however, that this supposition is not sound, and for the following reasons: Drugs vary not more in the intensity than in the permanence of their action upon the organism.  Some drugs  appear  speedily  to  exhaust, sometimes by  a  single  large  dose,  the susceptibility  of  the prover, so that no subsequent doses,  whether  large  or small,  produce any effect. Of others again, a single large dose  develops  some one  generic  or  central specific symptom, and along with it  induces  such  an exalted  and distorted susceptibility that every subsequent dose, whether  large or  small, evokes straightway that one symptom  or series of symptoms  and  none other. Thus the proving is in either case partial and incomplete-we fail to  get those  symptoms which are the most valuable of all to us, as being  those  which clearly  characterize  the drug and enable us to distinguish it from  all  other drugs, viz: the peripheral and central specific dynamic symptoms. To  illustrate this  point,  it is well known that Mercury given in such doses  as  to  produce central  specific  symptoms,  induces often so great  a  susceptibility  of  the organism  to  the action of this drug that subsequent doses, even  of  tolerably high dilutions, provoke straight-way a series of central symptoms. The same is true of Arsenic. We have seen a case in which, generic and  specific  symptoms having  once  been  produced by massive doses of  Tartar  emetic,  the  organism remained  so sensitive to the action of this substance, that a few  globules  of the  thirtieth dilution would at any time produce vomiting and  diarrhoea,  with cold  sweat  and  prostration.  It may be said that these are cases of very unusually great susceptibility to the action of the respective drugs.  This  is true,  but  it  is  precisely such cases of great  susceptibility  that  are  of exceeding  value to us, for in them, by judicious experimentation, we could  get most  valuable  peripheral symptoms, unalloyed by generic  or  by  revolutionary effects.  

          There  is  no  reason  to believe, on the other  hand,  that  small  doses,  so administered  as  to  produce  the  peripheral  specific  symptoms,  modify  the susceptibility  of  the prover in any such way as to prevent  his  obtaining  by subsequent  larger doses the central specific, the generic dynamic, or even  the chemical  and  mechanical effects. It follows from what has been said,  that  to obtain  an  exhaustive  proving of a drug, we should  begin  with  small  doses, gradually  increasing the quantity until unequivocal symptoms appear.  We  shall thus,  if  we  continue  our  experiments a  suitable  length  of  time,  obtain peripheral  symptoms;  and  these small doses will not have  so  influenced  the system  as  to  prevent  our obtaining by  subsequent  larger  doses  the  other varieties  of  effects.  Inasmuch as, in the nature of things, the peripheral symptoms, representing, as they do, a cachexy, cannot be speedily produced, a considerable space of time should be devoted to our first experiments with small doses.  Finally,  after an interval of non-medication, larger  doses  should  be taken  until  we have exhausted the whole dynamic action of the drug,  and  even obtained a fair picture of its chemical and revolutionary action, although  this may in a measure be gained from records of poisonings.  

In conclusion, we may assume the following points to be established by induction and by direct experience: In order to obtain an exhaustive proving:  

1. We must prove the drug both in dilutions and in massive doses.  

2. The proving should be commenced with dilutions: and high dilutions should be employed until satisfactory evidence is obtained that the prover is not susceptible to their action. We thus obtain one of the unknown quantities of our problem, viz., the measure of the susceptibility of the prover.  

3.  Where a keen susceptibility is found to exist, the greatest care must be exercised to avoid blunting or perverting it.  With this view, repeated experiments should be made at long intervals, with high potencies, until no new varieties of symptoms are evoked. Then, after a long period of  non-medication, the  prover  should  take  lower potencies and then small  doses  of  the  crude substance  repeated  at  intervals, and finally after  another  long  period  of repose,  large doses of crude substance. A thorough proving after this fashion may require years for its completion-but it will have an advantage over most of our recent provings, in the fact that it will be thorough, and that it will be of permanent and certain use to the practitioner.  

4.  In proving with dilutions, as well as with massive doses, a long period of time should be occupied in testing each preparation, in order that the full effect may be seen in the production of dyscrasias, etc.  

5.  The greatest care should be exercised in verifying symptoms be repeated experiments, in order that "imaginary" symptoms on the hand and chemical and mechanical symptoms on the other may be excluded. The fashion, which has  become very  prevalent of late, of including in the pathogenesis every sensation  which occurs during the proving, without distinction or verification-and which may  be called the Pre-Raphaelite method of proving-cannot be too strongly rebuked.

DR. J.T.KENT’S VIEW ON DRUG PROVING⁽²⁵⁾ 

          Kent advises all the provers to examine themselves for at least a week for the proving and note down all the symptoms that he or she is the victims of at the time and for many months back. After the prover is given a single dose of medicine, we should wait & see if it produces any symptom. As in a case of studying of miasms, we should understand the prodrome, period of progress and period of decline of the action of drug. If the prover is sensitive, single dose will produce symptoms especially in case of short acting medicines. But in case certain other medicines sulphur, silicate of Alumina etc, it will take a longer time to produce symptoms as the period of prodrome in this remedies will be longer and medicines should not be repeated during the period. If the medicines produces no effect & after enough time has been given to be sure that the prover is not sensitive to it. To intensify the effect, dissolve the medicine in water and give it every two hours for 24 to 48 hours unless the symptoms arise sooner. By this means the prodromal period is shortened. As soon as the symptoms begin to show, it is time to cease the remedy and wait as the image producing effect of drug comes spread and go away by itself. Dr. Kent warns not to interfere & the dose of medicine should not be repeated while the symptoms are appearing, as this will engraft upon the constitution of the patient. A diathesis of the remedy proved and it is dangerous thing to do & these effects of proving may be carried till the end of their lives. But a proving properly conducted will improve the health of the prover, it will help to turn things into order. Dr. Kent recommended that provers should not know what they are taking & they are requested not to make known to each other their original symptoms, whether cured, exaggerated or not interfered with. When the symptoms occur in their own natural way without being increased or diminished, it is considered as a natural thing of the prover and these symptoms are eliminated.

DR. H.A ROBERT’S VIEW ON DRUG PROVING⁽⁴¹⁾   

          A drug is any material agent, in however attenuated form, the ingestion of which is capable of disturbing this balance of the vital forces that the functioning of one or more organs of the body is no longer carried out to the best of the whole; and any material substance capable of so acting on the living organism is a drug.

          To ascertain the knowledge of a drug is to discover what disturbance of this balance it is capable of producing and what organs are affected; how and what functional changes are made manifest. When we have discovered all this about a drug we can say we have a proving. In order to be sure of the integrity of our work, we must demand three essential things:

1.     The quality of the drug must be pure; it must be free from all mixture with other drugs, and it must possess all its active properties

2.     The prover must possess the proper balance in functions and be in a normal, healthy state, so that we can estimate and weigh the amount of the disturbance caused when we deliberately upset the balance of health. 

3.     The circumstances surrounding the prover must be those of his normal surroundings, so that the drug can express its action under conditions and circumstances normal to the prover, that any deviation from normal in the prover’s condition cannot be attributed to different circumstances and conditions of his life, but directly to the action of the drug.

·    The ordinary habits of life must be observed, and his ordinary work maintained; otherwise changes from his routine might cause some deviation from his normal balance which would be attributed to the drug action.

·    All people do not make equally good provers. Some types are more susceptible to certain drug groups than are other types, and those who manifest susceptibility to the action of a drug to the point of developing symptoms must be secured for a satisfactory proving.

·     The prover must be intelligent enough properly to appreciate and record the subjective symptoms as deviations from his normal conditions of life, as these subjective symptoms are of the utmost value.

·