Methods of proving and mental symptoms
(Meeting of European committee for Homoeopathy, sub-committee of provings, april 27 1996, Brussels).
Dr P. Souk-Aloun.
One of the specificities of Homoeopathy is the importance giving to mental
symptoms. The present tendancy of Homoeopathy is toward objectivity, which means that the
proving methods give more importance to objective physical symptoms than subjective mental ones.
It is certainly not a new phenomena, we may recall Kent’s criticism. In
order to avoid
confusion with mysticism, we must remember that in this paper we deal only with the
methodology of proving.
Present proving methods used in Europe have in commun the use of
statistics and the inadequation to seize mental symptoms. The problem comes from a metaphysical
” paradigma ” (greek: model, pattern), which according to Thomas Kuhn is a
subjective filter through which the researcher “sees the world” and determines the way
he asks his questions and obtains his respon. Of course, one cannot use two filters at the same
time without cantradiction. Homeopathy and Statistics belong to two different systems.
Homoeopathy is a “medecine resulting of experience”. It is linked with empirism, and
thus opposite to western rationalism with which belongs Statistics. The statistical method is
short-sighted and take no notice of shades, subtleties and finer aspects of the symptom.
Certainly it can prove the effect of homeopathic drugs on cells or patients but it can not bring
out mental symptoms in the proving: you may just as well collect water in a sieve! We know that
usefull symptoms in Homeopathy such as mental symptoms are unusual and rare; whereas Statistics
show what is general and frequent.
The search for objectivity, mistaken with reality, has sometimes stranges
consequences. I will quote one: in a proving of a snake venom the authors take for credible
symptoms at 100% any change of blood test because it is numbers of mesure; they ignore that the
placebo can give also such change!
If we take the best of pathogenesis of Homeopathy, that is those left by
Hahnemann without which Homeopathy is not possible, we can see that the items collected in a
proving is not put through a mechanical filter but each item has been investigated and reflected
upon by the author and his collaborators. The subjective factor is obvious and make Homeopathy
unacceptable to the so-called true science. This does not mean that Homeopathy is inexact or
unreal: the errors are corrected by others provings and the clinical use. The comparison with
present methods shows up this fundamental difference: Hahnemann takes a fact (a collected
experimental symptom) works on it with his subjectivity, the modern researcher takes the fact as
it is and report or delete it mechanically.
It would be logical to develop a method of proving from an empiric
paradigma. That is what Hahnemann did. His methodology may be summarized in few words:
– Hypersensitive provers which ignore the kind of drug used.
– High dynamisation or at least over the barrier of Avogadro’s law.
– Long duration of the proving (several months) with strict life conditions for the provers.
– Systematic listing of all symptoms.
– Final discussion.
– Clinical verification.
The problem of “habitual symptoms” which Hahnemann did not take
into account may be overcome by close supervision of the provers and concise questioning. In
these conditions the subjective or mental symptoms are as likely to be retained as the objective
ones.
These conditions are almost never reached in the modern provings. These
provings often use dynamisations equal or less than 30 CH. The statistic method considere the
employment of hypersensitive and accustomed provers as a fault of method.
I must remember you that there is no structure of homeopathic
experimentation in Europe.
Making provings over more than 10 years, I think that for one drug we must
make provings in low (9CH and less), average (15-30CH) and high (200CH or more, or 200K)
dynamisation. Once the experimental symptoms are collected, the clinical use will complete the
pathogenesis.The surveillance of the provers after the proving is interesting (one or two year
after, some symptoms reveal themselve as “habitual” ones). The statistical methods are
used with the low and the average dynamisations, and Hahnemann’s method for the high. The
statistics point out the objective physical symptoms; some provers have much of these symptoms:
we will take care of them because they are hypersensitive to this drug and they will give more
mental symptom with high dynamisation.
For the rest, we need time, or else it becomes congress chit-chat. A
pathogenesis maked over less than 3 years (1 year of proving and clinical use, 2 years of
surveillance) is of no interest, because not verified.
Without the symptoms of mind, a prescription is the same as in allopathy;
you cannot use a pathogenesis in therapy if it does not include obvious mental symptoms.
Provings may be done to collect objective symptoms but we must remeber that pathogenesis is
carried out to be used by its mental symptoms.
In pratical level, our “informel groupe” of proving is going to
study in 1996:
– Dermatophagoïdes farinosae, responsible for many allergies and eczemas of children. Dr J.
Jobert thinks that this is a “Psorinum of modern time”.
– Andropogon muricatum (Vetiver), a sveet medicinal herb of India. Proved by Dr Huat, it show
syphilitic mental symptoms.
So my friends I look to you for help. Write to me if you
wish to be provers.