The principles and Art of Cure by Homoeopathy by HERBERT A. ROBERTS, M.D.

The principles and Art of Cure by Homśopathy

by HERBERT A. ROBERTS, M.D.
Presented by

CHAPTER XV
DRUG PROVING

     Drugs have been used as the usual method of
cure for disease since antiquity, and their derivations varied from simple herbs and
substances to fearsome combinations from all imaginable sources. The preparation and
administration of medicines was kept as a mystery for centuries, and the medicine man was
held as superior and revered as a little more than mortal for his powers. Various doctrines
of healing sprang up through the years; perhaps the most interesting of these was the
doctrine of signatures, founded on the belief that each member of the vegetable kingdom
carried within itself the likeness of some organ or part of the human economy, as a sign
that this particular plant was applicable to disturbances of that organ. That was probably
the most consistent method among all the very ancient systems of applying drugs.

     As medical knowledge progressed, occasional
writers caught glimpses of better methods of drug application, but such light was rare and
medical practice soon lapsed once more into the gloom of superstition. Paracelsus gained
considerable insight into the action of drugs, and Halle, the Swedish physician, was a
forerunner of Hahnemann in his deliberate experiments to discover the nature of certain
remedies. These attempts were no coordinated, and made little impression upon the medical
world. It was not until Hahnemann demanded to know the action of drugs upon the human
organism that the work was taken up in an orderly way; this demand, however, was not
forthcoming until after he discovered the law of cure. The discovery of the law made it
mandatory to know the action of drugs, and Hahnemann set to work to obtain that knowledge
and called the work drug proving.

     What is a drug? And what do we do to prove
a drug?

     In order to answer the question, What is a
drug? We must go back and ask, What is life? Continued action of those forces, through and
upon the organs of the body, which preserve it from decay, this is life; and health is that
balanced action of these forces which preserves the integrity of all the parts. In this
balance lies the conservation of the whole; without this balance more or less destruction of
the part is the result, and the value of this balance is determined by the importance and
number of organs or functions involved.

     A drug is any material agent, in however
attenuated form, the ingestion of which is capable of so 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. Hence drugs are essentially destructive; therein lies the difference
between drugs and foods-drugs are destructive while foods are constructive. Both drugs and
foods act upon the vital force which rules in all animate beings.

     To ascertain the knowledge of a drug is a
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.

     These three points must be maintained most
carefully.

     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. Those who are peculiarly susceptible to
a drug make the best provers, for it is the peculiarly susceptible who develop in the
proving the peculiar, rare and characteristic symptoms of the drug; yet those who are less
susceptible cannot be rejected as provers provided they develop symptoms even in a small
degree, as these serve to verify the symptoms produced in the extremely susceptible, and
thus establish them as true symptoms and not chance observation. Not all provers will
develop or give the identical symptomatology, some recording a complete symptom while others
will record but a partial symptom.

     In a consideration of food and the
susceptible prover, in some instances an individual will manifest an idiosyncrasy to a
certain food or group of foods. To this susceptible, the food becomes a drug, and the
individual having this idiosyncrasy is merely manifesting his susceptibility to the possible
drug properties in this food substance; he will be the best possible prover to this drug.

     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. There is a vast
difference in people in their ability both to perceive and to describe their subjective
symptoms, therefore we must have a prover who has the gift of perception. We find the lack
of perception in many patients who cannot describe their symptoms; such people do not make
good provers.

     Honesty is a prerequisite of a good prover,
for he must be very careful to record all phenomena as fact. Remember, a proving is a record
of facts-facts that can be produced repeatedly in others; therefore facts must be carefully
recorded from the very beginning of the experiment; yet we must avoid equally skepticism,
imaginary phenomena or the over-coloring of the real facts. Remember always to treat a fact
as a fact and do not try to add to or subtract from its importance; it is not for the prover
to sift the symptoms produced. Treat the facts as they are; unless one can do this, he will
not make a valuable prover.

     At the beginning of this work, the prover
must be in that state of mental, moral and physical equilibrium that is characteristic of a
normal, healthy being. One who is subject to rapidly changing equilibrium on any one or all
of these planes will not make a good prover.

     Bear in mind the main and only object in
conducting a proving: to discover the positive characteristic of the action of the drug on
the vital energy of the human being; to obtain a full knowledge of its action so that its
power can be readily distinguished from any other drug, for the
lawful application of the remedy in states of disturbed vital energy which we call disease.

     In making the record, all symptoms must be
recorded, but we must not forget that many of these symptoms are held in common with many
other drugs; while these symptoms possess a certain value in the final analysis, we must
determine those symptoms of the greatest value, especially those which are the most peculiar
and characteristic of the drug-the rare, unusual symptoms that distinguish it from all
others, because these are the symptoms which will be curative symptoms, in that they will be
the guiding symptoms in selecting the remedy. The symptoms such as are held in common by
many drugs are not of great value in the curative sphere. Every symptom must be recorded
without bias or favor, otherwise we shall lose unwittingly some of the characteristic
symptoms; after all are recorded we can then compare all these symptoms with other drug
provings.

     So in making a proving two things are to be
accomplished: a detailed record of the order of appearance of all symptoms, and an analysis
of the symptoms. In making the analysis the three major points of all symptoms should be
borne in mind: Location; sensation; and the modifying character of the symptoms, or
modalities, together with the concomitant or apparently unrelated symptoms. The analysis is
not complete until we have a comparison of the symptoms with those produced by other drug
provings.

     Having a clear view of the real objective
of a proving, and having compiled with all the requirement to produce such a proving, how do
we proceed?

     First, let us consider the dose. It may be
we shall use the crude drug, or a low potency, or a high potency, depending upon the nature
of the drug. How do we determine which to use? There are certain consideration which are
sufficiently stable for guiding rules. From an apparently inert substance, such as Lycopodium, Carbo veg. or Graphites,
we can obtain a good proving only from a high potency; therefore we may take as an axiom:
ANY DRUG WHICH IN ITS NATURAL STATE AFFECTS THE VITAL ENERGY BUT LITTLE WILL DEVELOP A
PROVING ONLY IN A HIGH POTENCY. Other drugs having a very strong action upon the human
economy in their natural state, such as Lobelia, Ipecac., Cicuta
or Tabacum, may be used in a crude form: ANY DRUG WHICH
IN ITS NATURAL STATE DISTURBS THE VITAL ENERGY TO FUNCTIONAL MANIFESTATIONS ONLY MAY BE
PROVEN IN A CRUDE FORM. Still other drugs, such as the Mercurius
group, which are actively poisonous in the crude form, can be proven only in the high
potencies. ANY DRUG WHICH IN ITS NATURAL STATE DISTURBS THE VITAL ENERGY TO DESTRUCTIVE
MANIFESTATIONS SHOULD BE PROVEN ONLY IN A POTENTIATED FORM.

     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 substances 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 expelled from the baby before they reach the dynamis of
the system, the vital energy.

     In the provings 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 on 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 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 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 sequence, and it
is important to know 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 symptom 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
sensation: 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 positions
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 afterward, 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 produced 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 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 will be able to recognize when we meet in this sick
room.

>>>>>