Drug proving
By Adolph Lippe, M.D.
Presented by Sylvain Cazalet
Comte Adolph
von LIPPE
(1812-1888)Our knowledge of the
curative virtues of drugs depends on our knowledge of their sick-making
properties ; this latter can be obtained only by proving drugs on
the healthy. Hence it is evident, that the true healer will never treat
the sick with unproved drugs.The object of this paper is
to offer some suggestions for the proving of drugs, as it is obvious
that the progress of the Healing Art depends solely upon an increase and
thorough knowledge of the sick-making power of drugs. Hahnemann has
given us, in the Organon, full
reasons for the necessity of proving drugs, as well as directions how to
do it. It would seem superfluous to reiterate the arguments he gave us
almost fifty years ago, were it not self-evident that numbers of his
professed followers are not conversant with the teachings to be found in
said Organon.We now address ourselves
principally to just such men ; they are imitating a vain attempt,
made more than half a century ago by Dr. Lux. To introduce into our
therapeutics the unproved products of disease, which he claimed would,
when potentized cure the same disease. Hahnemann alludes to this
“departure” in a foot-note to paragraph
56 in his Organon. If all
persons coming under the influences of a miasm were affected precisely
alike, then only would it be rational to apply the potentized product of
this miasm for the cure of it ; but as it is well known that
different persons are very differently affected by each miasmatic and
contagious disease, it is Obvious that a generalization, as proposed
again now-a-days cannot be accepted. Homœopathy individualizes, while
the common school of medicine generalizes. All medical men who indulge
in the belief that pathology has become an exact science ; that the
modern theories as to diseases are true, or any truer than the former
ever-changing hypotheses and incorporate them into our Healing Art, and,
through them, find specific remedies for specific diseases ; all
those who go further astray, and indulge in the fallacious belief that
the product of a disease then potentized-highly potentized-will cure,
permanently cure, the same disease in others, these medical- men will
find that they have been running after a phantom.This phantom-hunt consists
in seeking a fixed form of disease, pathologically labeled, and
presented to innocent students of the Healing Art, in works on
pathology, or on diagnosis on the part of the common school ; and
by such works as the “Pharmacodynamics”, on the part of the
homœopathists. These phantoms make the unfortunate seeker for wisdom
believe. That he has found finally a specific remedy for a specific
disease. Sooner or later the reality will stare this unfortunate and
deceived Æsculapius in the face, that his “specifics for specific
diseases” are an illusion and a snare, notwithstanding that the
teacher who allured him into this fallacious belief may have stood high
in an Allopathic University, or stood high on a Potentizer proclaiming
such “specifics”. The deluded one may then read earnestly The Organon
of Samuel Hahnemann, and make the experiment as he teaches him to make
it. Then he will abandon the phantom and become a true Healer. As this
paper may reach just such unfortunate, but honestly intentioned men, who
are in want of the light, which they can obtain only by reading The Organon,
we can but ask them to see what Hahnemann did say on this subject, and
become interested in the study of the most philosophical and logical
medical work ever written by inspired men on Healing Art –The
Organon of Samuel Hahnemann.Our first question is -Who
should prove drugs ?Every one in a tolerable
state of health, able to observe on himself any change that may take
place, different from his ordinary feelings and sensations, is able to
prove a medicine. The more diversified and constitution, disposition,
age, and sex of the provers, the better will be the provings.To be most fully prepared
for the task he is undertaking, the prover should note down his daily
state of health for a week before he begins his provings. He will then
find it much easier to describe such sensations and feelings as deviate
from his usual normal condition. The art of observation is one of the
most important faculties to be learned by the Heater. Nothing will aid
him more in the acquisition of this art than self-examination. Proving
of drugs will be more fruitful in developing this self-observation than
anything else. Once acquired, it will make the art of observation upon
others a comparatively easy task. Skill in proving, leads to skill in
examining the sick, and- having, as a prover, carefully observed all the
minutest symptoms caused by the drug, one will almost involuntarily
compare these new symptoms, with those produced by other (already
proved) drugs, and obtain by such comparisons, an insight into our
Materia Medica, which he could not possibly acquire in any other way.
The drug to be proved.
The first object is to
procure the drug or other matter to be proved in its purity; then to
make a full statement as to how and where it was obtained and how it was
prepared. The preparation of chemical substances was always given in
detail by Hahnemann, so as to insure the reproduction of precisely the
same chemical substance in the future. Plants should be collected by the
prover, if possible, at the right season and where they grow on their
original soil; for instance, the flower taken from the Cactus
grandiflorus growing in a hot-house, will not make a good preparation,
either for provings or as a curative agent. This preparation should be
made, as it was made, on the spot where the Cactus grows wild, and at
the right time and season, when the flower opens at night and fills the
atmosphere with its fragrance.If the drug is taken from
the animal kingdom, the animal should, if possible, be preserved and
subsequent supplies should come from the same species, and under similar
circumstances.The few drops of poison
taken from the Trigonocephalus Lachesis by Dr. Hering, in Surinam, over
fifty years ago, has sufficed so far to supply all the demand for
Lachesis. What is more, the identical snake from which the poison was
taken is still preserved in the Academy of Natural Sciences of
Philadelphia. Preparations taken from the same species of snake, while
confined in cages in menageries or any public institutions, cannot
reasonably be expected to have the same medicinal power as those from
the wild snake brought alive to Dr. Hering by the Indians in the country
where it was caught.
THE DOSE
We know that one contact
with an infectious disease, one inhalation of malarious air, one sudden
mental emotion, will cause a succession of phenomena and symptoms, which
finally end either in a full recovery, by what is termed the crisis or
throwing off of the diseased organism; or else, if the organism be in
too feeble a condition to resist the influences, or if the efforts of
Nature to bring about this crisis have been interfered with by violent
means. (i. e. energetic treatment),
the system succumbs to the overpowering influences, and death is the
consequence.This observation of the
natural causes of natural diseases must serve us as a guide in
ascertaining the sickness properties of drugs. If we wish to ascertain
the artificially diseased condition drugs produce upon the healthy, we
make our experiment by taking one dose of the drug; and as we do not
expect an immediate effect from a contact with all infectious disease
experience teaches us that it requires days, hardly ever less than three
days before the effects of such a contact become perceptibly developed,
so we cannot reasonably expect an immediate perceptible development of
Life sick-making effects of one dose of the medicine to be proved. If
there is no effect perceptible after, say five days, we will have to
proceed just as we do when we administer medicines for the cure of the
sick; finding ourselves not susceptible to the drug to be proven, we
must take either a lower or higher preparation; and when no effects
follow this, we may take the potentized drug in a watery solution until
an effect is perceptible. When the question arises what preparation of
the drug we should take in that one first dose, we may as well consult
Hahnemann, who tells us, in paragraph 128 of his Organon, that
substances, if proved in the crude state, by no means show the richness
and fullness of sick-making powers; that the dormant powers of the drug
are developed by potentization; and that we obtain a better knowledge of
the properties of drugs if we take it a few pellets of the 30th
potency. Fifty years ago, the 30th potency was the highest
potency known, since then innumerable experiments, both on the healthy
and the sick, have fully established the fact that a greater degree of
sick-making power is developed by much higher potentizations. When
Hahnemann advised a few pellets of the 30th potency as a
proper dose for testing the drug, knowing that its medicinal powers are
developed by potentization, his followers tried the experiment, and
ascertained that the highest known potencies are endowed with a
proportionately higher medicinal property than the crude substances or
lower preparations possess. All depends upon the only reliable test,
experiment; whoever will make this experiment honestly, will find that a
single dose of the highest potency will cause a succession of symptoms
much more distinctly marked, much more characteristic than any other
preparations before used, even in the single dose or in repeated doses.
We have, for instance, this day, no other provings of Theridion than
those made by the 30th potency, we have provings of
Lachmanthes made by the highest potency than known (76m.) and the
symptoms obtained in this manner have been confirmed by clinical
experiment.
REGIMEN DURING THE PROVING
The prover will do best to
continue his usual diet and habits in general, as a deviation from them
would necessarily cause some changes in his condition, and these might
erroneously be attributed to the effects of the drug he proves. At the
same time, he should for this same reason, avoid all possible mental
excitement and, above all, any exposures to the changes of the weather
or to cold. Such exposures, during the development of the sick-making
properties of a drug, might, as we know it did in several deplorable
instances, fix upon the prover ailments for life. We know that a person
suffering from an acute disease has to be very careful not to expose
himself to influences of mental disturbance or the weather, which in his
ordinary state of health, would effect him only temporarily; but which,
during an acute illness might, and often does, leave their marks,
disturbing his health during the rest of his life.
THE DAY-BOOK
The prover would do well to
give first a description of himself-age, sex, temperament, former
ailments or diseases, habits and the influence which changes in the
weather have to him. Next, a full description of the substance or drug
proved, how and where it was obtained and how it was prepared. Next
mention the dose and the time of the day. This self-examination should
be as carefully conducted as the examination of a sick person. A daily
journal should be kept, in which nothing is omitted; some symptoms, or
groups of symptoms, may often reappear, they should be very distinctly
related again, as these frequently recurring disturbances, however long
they may continue, often denote the most characteristic symptoms of the
substance or drug prove. And, as in the examination of the sick, so in
proving, the experimenter should describe very minutely under what
circumstances certain symptoms appear. Also state whether food, changes
in the weather, exercise or rest in certain position, cause new, or
aggravate, or ameliorate old symptoms.Finally, let us remember
that the proving of drugs of all kinds and by many persons, will not
only increase our ability to cure the sick, but will also forever settle
many, as yet, disputed points, such as the possibility of finding a drug
which can produce symptoms forming the exact similar to a known
pathological condition – a disease. Proving will settle forever the
disturbing posological question; provings, and their practical
utilization, will confirm the infallibility of the only Law of cure – Similia
similibus curantur.Source : I.
H. A., 1882.Copyright © Sylvain
Cazalet 2000
