Homeopathy Tips for 7/07/09 Provings

      It is only through provings that we can know the dynamic influence  of any medicinal substance on man. It is the basis for gathering and dissemination of information about the remedy. There are probably as many different ways to conduct a proving as there are people to prove the substance. If homeopathy wants to build a solid information based Materia Medica, then it is a good idea to somewhat standardize the process.

     Hahnemann wrote about provings between Aphorisms 105 and 145. Here he described the need and process for provings. Kent in his Lectures on Homeopathic Philosophy Chapter XXVIII also referred to the need and importance of provings. What we have been lacking is a standardized method for conducting provings. Even within any method there will be deviations from one proving method to another.

     Jeremy Sherr has done many provings through his Dynamis School of Homeopathy and has written about his observations of the proving process in his book The Dynamics and Methodology of Homeopathic Provings. It is the most modern and in depth look at provings and creating a standardized method.

       There are six stages to a proving.

  • Stage one – Preparation   This is where the roles of the group and protocols established. Even at this time before the remedies have been taken and the proving commences, notes should be recorded. Only the committee will know the remedy that is to be proven. Supervisors take the cases of the provers during this time to establish a basis of health. The remedy is obtained and potentized.
  • Stage  Two – Proving  Provers take the remedy six times over the first two days. Prover and supervisor are in daily contact and both are taking notes. As prover symptoms abate the frequency of contact lessens to every 2, 3 and then 7 days. Once no symptoms have occurred for 3-4 weeks then the proving is finished.
  • Stage Three – Extraction  Groups go through notes to extract valid symptoms only. The group meets to discuss their experiences. When extraction is finished the remedy name is announced.
  • Stage Four – Collation  Extractions collected and edited. Toxological data added. Symptoms sorted and edited.
  • Stage Five – Repertorisation  The team repertorises. Symptoms graded. Repertory collated by one person.
  • Stage Six – Publish

     This process is lengthy and requires much dedication on the parts of all involved. The data to process can be extensive. It can sometimes take years to put all of this together depending on the number of provers and time constraints of the participants.  

     The question of which potency to administer remains even after Sherrs work. His observations are that the lower potencies will reveal as many mental symptoms or even more than the higher potencies. The higher potencies seem to have a more dynamic effect if the prover is very susceptible. Common potencies used by Sherr in his Hydrogen proving were; 6C, 9C, 12C, 15C, 30C and 200C. In Aphorism 128 Hahnemann suggested the 30C potency. This was at a time in Hahnemann’s career that he was trying to standardise the 30C potency. It seem all approaches have become valid.

       It has been observed that doses repeated in a short period of time then stopped often elicited a response that was observable to the prover but did not risk the chance of grafting. Once a prover experienced the remedy energy, the doses were stopped. In no case after experiencing the remedy are doses to be repeated at a later time during the proving. This could be detrimental.  If after taking the six doses over a two day period and  there was no response, only then should the remedy be repeated; this is after the first two weeks of the proving.

        There is a group dynamic that occurs during a proving. This is established first by intention. The common intention of all participants to experience the dynamic and hidden nature of a substance opens up the morphogenic field. (To learn more about this read about the work of Rupert Sheldrake. ) This allows all elements in the surrounding field of the dynamic energy to be released. We  find during provings that there are many coincidences about the subject from all over the world. This really shows the dynamic nature of the remedy and helps expose it’s essence.

     If any of you are considering doing a proving of a substance I would highly suggest reading the Organon and Jeremy Sherr’s book. They are the best sources for information and guidelines for conducting a proving. There have been more than 500 modern day provings that have been added to our Materia Medicas. These are important but in the end there are so very many more provings that could be done. When they are, they should be conducted with as much uniformity as possible.  Provings are no small undertaking and should be approached with a strong desire to see it through and  an equal amount of diligence. My hat goes off to all of our modern day provers.

13 comments so far

  1. salma on

    thank you and can you give more information about swine flu?
    And what to use for my 6 year old who has speech and language delay that can encourage and improve his speech and language. Thanks

    Dear Salma,
    It is best to have a professional homeopath take your childs case and prescribe accordingly. Homeopathy is not a “one size fits all” approach. It is individualized medicine and your child will have a remedy for “her/him” not for the diagnosis of speach impediment or delayed development. The swine flu seems to have not become the grand pandemic that was advertised. I have written about this in a previous article. You can find it in the newletter Homeopathy Tips to the right.
    Warmest regards,
    Robert Field

    • dr ritesh on

      salmaji, for you 6 year old who has speech and language delay you can started tuberculinum 200 wkly for 1month with calc.phos 6 then after 1 month tuberculinum 1m wkly with calc.phos 6. Contaact once to ENT espeslist for diagnos tongue tie . ok

  2. dr ritesh on

    for you 6 year old who has speech and language delay you can started tuberculinum 200 wkly for 1month with calc.phos 6 then after 1 month tuberculinum 1m wkly with calc.phos 6. Contaact once to ENT espeslist for diagnos tongue tie . ok

  3. mah-jabeen on

    dera, dr Robert thanks for information

  4. Margarita on

    Thank you Robert for your very informative tips.
    Greetings!
    Monina

  5. Dr. Poonam Batra on

    Dear Robert,
    As usual, a good piece of information from you. Please share your cases whenever possible.
    Dear Salma, Tuberculin 200 or 1m weekly is a dangerous thing. Your daughter’s case should be properly taken by a homoeopath and then accordingly prescribed.

    Hi Dr Poonam Batra,
    I agree with you very much about your comment to Salma. It is always best to have a professional homeopath take the case.
    Thanks for your comment.
    Robert

  6. Surya Narayan Sarangi on

    Dear Robert,

    your present article reminded me that you can help and guide me in my research work.Out of my experiences about the action of remedies,I am synthesizing some compounds to observe its action as homeopathic remedies.But I am in a fix about potentization and do’nt know how to accomplish this genuinely.
    Can you guide me about this?
    With love & regards,
    Surya.

    Dear Srya,
    Are you wanting to prove the substances that you are wanting to potentise? Following the steps that are outlined above that are very well writtern about by Jeremy Sherr in his book will aid you greatly. Finding a good Homeopathic Laboratory to potentise your compounds will be necessary. Hahnemann Laboratories in the USA can do this for you. Their phone number is 888-427-6422.
    There are other laboratories all over the world as well. My first bit of advice is to create a plan and see it through step by step. This is where Jeremy Sherr’s book will be of great assistance. Good luck.

    Warmest regards,
    Robert Field

  7. John Benneth on

    I am repeatedly assailed by skeptics re: my videos on the science of homeopathy, and after one particularly abusive comment, I got all in a fury about where people are getting their screwy notions about homeopathy.
    So yesterday I picked up the phone and had a conversation with Michael Shermer, the editor of Skeptic Magazine and the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, in which he spells the master’s name HANNAMAN.
    The article said “Hannaman’s” success was due to the fact that his patients were so poor and could not afford regular doctors, who would normally kill their wealthier clients with whatever they were posioning people with at the time . . proof, I tell you, proof, that homeopathy is charlatanism! Yeah, right. Whatever happened to footnotes from the people who demand extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims? Who are these people Shermer’s talking about? Did they simply erupt from his imagination? How is it even relevant?
    Well, I could write a dissertation on the consistent application of critical standards, but I won’t, although I did point out the mispelling to Shermer, and he begged off, saying that he only edited the article, which of course is worse.
    Then I asked how he could reconcile the placebo position taken on homeopathy with the recent science, which it turned out he was completely unaware: in Physics! in Vitro! in Vivo!
    Huh?
    Come on!
    He said there were no double blind trials, and I responded to say that THAT simply is flat out NOT TRUE, and would he like some links?
    Haven’t heard back yet, but it’s early in the day. I’ll call him back and see what he says, and report.
    You see, it is my intention to beat this poor man to a bloody pulp . . metaphorically speaking, of course . . with the past, present and future science of homeopathy, with or without his help.
    Homeopath’s, I have heard it said, in their conduct of provings, were the first to employ double blind testing, so I am particularly interested in this data, Robert, and hit the critics with it. I would like to read more. And would it be possible to extend the proving process online to the masses? Eh? Now there’s an idea. Maybe we could fund it with Randi’s million, or just get the money directly from Richard Adams!
    And let me say one more thing, that the anti-science approach to homeopathy is most distressing considering its empirical nature. I think it’s time to really put it in people’s faces. This is a science born by evidence in the face of theory that it shouldn’t be!
    Now, do not tell me that the barking dogs are of no consequence. According to Perko, that pandemically influenza has taken the greatest toll on humanity, and homeopathy has been the best escape. But where is homeoprophylaxis for the flu today, with people like Shermer, Dawkins, Ernst and Randi pontificating their anti-science? It’s nowhere but in the bushes of Cuba, Kenya and sometimes Brazil!
    People really don’t like being made fun of, which is what people like Shermer do to those who are trying to develop the use of dynamized solvents in medicine, and so serious investigators with the equipment and expertise traditionally ran like hell the other way when they heard the words “test for homeopathy.” Every researcher I have found from Boericke to Roy has been assailed, dimissed, ridiculed, laughed and ruined for their results. However, with reports from Stanford and Penn State and e-reporting , there has been what appears to be an end run around the old guard critics. Now let’s hit them head on. Establish a challenge fund to award to anyone who can prove that homeopathy is placebo, under similar terms made to us by Randi, and watch their jaws hit the floor, because they can’t do it. Homeopathy will boom even bigger then it currently is booming.
    For what homeopathy has to offer, people like Shermer, and the hordes who follow them, are walking-talking public health hazards. It’s time to assertively, if not aggressively, confront the barking with the science, demand a program HQ’d in Atlanta with the CDC and make the dogs STFU.
    Any help tha can be offered here with more direction in provings would be most appreciated; Robert, let’s do an online proving! You heard here it first!
    JOHN BENNETH
    Portland, Oregon
    (formerly of Virginia City, NV)

    • Robert Field on

      Hey John,
      We are former neighbors. How about that. It sounds like you are doing your homework and taking them head-on. I support your efforts. As to an online proving, it sounds like a big organizational effort. This is something I do not have time or energy for myself. But I wiould be happy to support your efforts. It sounds like an interesting approach. Read Jeremy Sherr’s book so that if you do this, you will be well organized and can use the information gained from the proving. You definately do not want to create a proving and then have it debunked as pseudoscience because it was not conducted properly. Provings are a big endeavour. Good luck, and thanks for your message. It’s inspiring to hear from you. You are one of the few willing people with the energy to take on the debunkers. Go for it.

      Blessings,
      Robert

  8. padma on

    sir,
    i have a child 4 years old who has congenital thyroid problem by birth.this problem had been diagonised 3 months after her birth,because of this she is suffering from developmental delay and ADHD problem.she repeats what ever she listens to but is not able to understand everything that we speak and communicate.her maturity level is also of a 2 year child.i request u to give suggestions about accelerating her brain development.

    Hi Padma,
    A consultation with a professional homeopath is really required. Remember that Homeopathy is very individualized medicine and to properly prescribe for this child her case would need to be evaluated and a much more extensive understanding of her suffering be known. This should be with a very good experienced homeopath.

    Good luck,
    Robert Field

  9. Philip Joseph on

    Dear Robert:

    It is my understanding,in general, that during a proving, the higher potencies affect the intellect, mind, emotions etc while the lower potencies show effects on physical symptoms. In this context, how are the provings of poisons obtained – for example – arsenic or a snake poison, they cannot be taken in gross or low potency, they can be safely taken only in higher potency. So are their symptom pictures in the medica based on accidental posionings and on the provings of higher potencies?. I did some research and read that Lachesis was accidentally proved first in gross form by Hering who was accidentally knicked by the venom or inhaled it(some accounts vary). Similarly, Clarke writes a lot about post mortems revealing a lot about Kali Iodide’s effects on the heart etc leading to its use in potency for healing the heart when the whole proving symptom picture agreed and a damaged heart valve etc as detected by a stethescope became a confirmatory symptom. But a paradox is that some substances can be proved only in lower potencies eg Passiflora, Thiosinaminum etc. They don’t seem to have any proving effect in higher potencies. The only thing I can conclude is that the energy pattern of each remedy is something G-D given beyond my comprehension. Incidentally the snake that Hering captured is reportedly kept in embalmed form in a glass cage display in a Philadelphia zoo. I have also wondered how Organopathic remedies (heart, kidney, lungs, ligament etc) are prescribed – on what symptom basis – as none of these remedies were proved in a classical sense.

    Hi Philip,
    Your understanding that some subsatnces prove differently than others and is determined by G-D is accurate and true. There will always be things we do not understand. In Jeremy Sherr’s book he commented that he found no real correlation between potency and mental/emotion/physical symptoms. He actually said more mentals came up in the lower (up to 30C) potencies than in higher potency provings. His observation was that the higher potencies seemed to effect those more sensitive individuals. Most likely because of an increased susceptability. We do have low potencies of very poisonous substances. In my understanding the low potencies are from mother ticnture to 30C. Medium potencies are from 30C to 200C. And higher potencies are from 200C to CM. So we do have lower potency provings of Lachesis, etc. Once the dilution is beyond Avagrado’s dilution then it is in the realm of energy only. This happens at a relative low potency. Organotherapies are not prescribed in a classical homeopathic way. It is a method of allopathic prescribing that has borrowed energetic medicines and prescribed with an allopathic intent. This is not homeopathy, by definition.
    Thanks again for your comments,
    Robert

  10. Smita on

    My 3.5 year old son has speech delay. Can you please help?

  11. rusfingroup. on

    Приглашаем пользователей в вашу группу/встречу.

    Количество приглашений – Стоимость
    1000 приглашений/ 90рублей
    5000 приглашений/ 300рублей
    10000 приглашений/ 500 рублей
    20000 приглашений/ 900 рублей
    После 20000 приглашений Каждые 1000 приглашений = 50рублей

    Цены по критериям от 100р за 1000 приглашений.

    * Оплата принимается с помощью WebMoney или Yandex.Деньги.

    контаты: icq 822336

    сайт http://rusfingroup.com


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: