Weaving Proving Material Into a Whole

By Richard Pitt

The presentation of proving material

In deciding how to present proving material, a proving coordinator is forced to make certain decisions. The main issue is to decide how much to structure, organize and schematize the data created. The two main methods used are to create a broad schema based on the same structure as the repertory and put all the data chosen of all the provers into the requisite fields. The second method is to list all the data of each prover separately, giving the reader a feel of the unique “whole” effect of each prover. Some provings utilize both methods.

For busy practitioners, reading through large provings becomes a challenging task and it is hard to “see” what is really characteristic in the proving. Some provings have very little structure, apart from being of the mind, head, throat, etc.—and are basically one long list of symptoms. This can make it very difficult to extract anything substantial from the proving, but even then some significant work has been done to extract and compile data attributed to the proving.

One of the challenges for proving coordinators is to create themes for the main symptoms produced in the proving, especially in the mind and dreams section of the remedy. Writers who have published provings have spent much time organizing data to make it accessible to readers. For all those doing such work, the challenge is to categorize the disparate symptoms accurately, and to choose words/themes that most accurately reflect the language in the proving. Even with extreme care, this is still a difficult task, running the risk of being too interpretative. However, some categorization has to be done if a proving is to be accessible to the reader. It is my opinion that it is the obligation of the proving coordinator to do this task. There has been a tendency amongst those following what is described as strict “Hahnemannian provings” to do little analysis and compiling, only establishing broad categorizations and leaving it to the reader to delve into the proving material.

Other people have attempted to be more interpretative and to extract certain salient essential qualities of the proving. The first style runs the risk of making provings inaccessible to read for the busy practitioner, while the second style risks distorting and interpretating the data that compromises the integrity of the picture of the proving. Some attempts to find a middle ground have been tried, from creating a condensed synopsis of the proving to introducing a summary of the main areas in the whole proving, isolating some mental and physical characteristics. There has also been some suggestions to create two provings, one of totally essential information and then another of “possible” information attributed to the proving. However, in each of these styles, the same issue is whether the proving coordinator is able to create an accurate extraction and representation of the material of the proving. Given the need though to make proving material accessible, this task should be carried out by the proving coordinator, who knows the intimate details of the proving best. It can be argued that leaving interpretation to the reader does not help in making the information available and can be fraught with the same interpretative challenges.

One of the areas of criticism has been a tendency for coordinators to focus on the mental symptoms of the proving, leading to an over analysis of these symptoms and a generalization of the character typology that would fit the proving. This has been seen in a book called “Trees That Heal”, by Steve Olsen, where he creates some “essence” style images of provings he’s done. He also published a proving done with two provers. This can be a real problem with provings, similar to when practitioners create over generalized “essences” of a remedy based on a few clinical cases. It is in these situations that speculation tends to occur more easily. It also has to make sense to give physical symptoms as much attention as mental symptoms and ideally to see the connection between the two.

If a coordinator chooses to list proving data only in the format of one prover at a time, this creates much more difficulty in analyzing overall themes of a proving, and in my opinion greatly reduces it’s usefulness. One of the key areas of provings is to connect the similar themes that different provers experience and to lay out the data in a structure similar to materia medicas. One person’s experience may be interesting but it is not seen in context to the rest of the proving.

Another issue regarding the provings of constitutional types is a comment that Paul Herscu brings up in his book “Provings and a Proving of Alcoholus”. He states that it is important to have as many “constitutional” types as possible in a proving, to maximize the variety of possible responses to a substance. He states how this has been omitted in provings so far. In his write up for each prover, he gives a brief introduction, outlining their “constitutional” type and other remedies that have worked, which he feels can add to our knowledge of the complementary relationship between the remedy being proved and other remedies. However, his argument of the importance of this does bring up a question regarding the notion of constitution and the similarities between people needing the same remedy and how they would react to the same proving remedy. It is debatable whether two or more people needing Lycopodium would react in a similar way to a proving remedy, although it would be interesting if this research could be carried out to see if there is some significance to this idea. However, for the proving coordinators to know the apparent constitutional remedy of the person prior to the proving puts another level of complexity onto the whole process. Finally, a proving is a process in which a person “incarnates” the spirit of a particular substance. How significant the “constitutional” type of each prover would be to the proving effects has yet to be seen and, given the existing level of complexity in doing a proving, it adds another variable that would be hard to evaluate. Todd Rowe, who has proven many remedies at the Desert Institute of Classical Homeopathy (Now the American Medical College of Homeopathy) thinks that people who do well on plant remedies are more likely to react to plant remedy provings, and has seen that people who needs a syphilitic remedy constitutionally will respond more to a syphilitic remedy in a proving. However, knowing which miasm a proving remedy may belong to is also open to debate and ultimately can only be confirmed in clinical experience.

All proving coordinators face the challenge in how to present the proving in a way that encourages access to the material without over manipulating the data. It is not always an easy task, but it can greatly help the reader if an accurate introduction and summary is given along with an appropriate schema for the proving.

Philosophical questions and implications of provings

What is the connection between the proving coordinator and the remedy chosen? Are there certain “synchronicities” at work when a person chooses a remedy to prove and then proceeds to do a proving? Are the results to some extent a reflection of the nature of the person who initiated it, or are they truly objective expressions of the substance proved? Also, are the themes and rubrics chosen a reflection of the coordinator? These are very difficult questions to answer and perhaps all that can be done is to consider these issues when conducting provings and also to study the results of other provings done by the same person. The question of the possibility of true objectivity and the line that separates the effect of a proving from other phenomena is a contentious one, and has been discussed within the homeopathic community for some time now. Even in scientific circles there is acknowledgement that objectivity in the sense that the observer is separated from the thing being observed does not happen. It is all part of the gestalt and the best we can do is to “observe” the phenomenon of what happens when a proving takes place, to see what changes, and then to attempt to extrapolate it’s significance as part of the proving. Perhaps that is the best that can be done and perhaps in the light of “pure” experience, that is enough. Pure experience presumes an ability to see the phenomena of “what is”, of what happens, not as a means to necessarily understand, replicate or reduce it or conform to other “conventional” methodological criteria, but to use our abilities to perceive what actually occurs when a proving takes place. This requires an open mind, free from personal agendas, too many prejudices and an interest in seeing what actually occurs during the proving process.

Paul Herscu discusses in his book, “Provings and the proving of Alcoholus”, the need to validate the scientific basis of homeopathic provings, how the fact that homeopathic methodology in provings, as established by Hahnemann, in fact set the stage for allopathic protocol; homeopaths actually began the process, and therefore it is important we maintain a scientific protocol for homeopathic provings as a means to show that our methodology is scientific, that it does stand up to inspection from the scientific community. He justifies the methodology of Hahnemann’s original provings, how in spite of the fact that many provers knew the remedies being proved, Hahnemann tried to control the circumstances as much as possible so as to glean the most objective knowledge of the remedy’s effects. He also mentions that it was in 1885 at an AIH (American Institute of Homeopathy) meeting where the significance of masked studies and placebo controls were stated, over 40 years before allopathic protocol adopted similar methods, now a cornerstone of allopathic methodology. In other words, the homeopaths set the stage for this. The use of placebo has always been debated within homeopathy, including whether such information of the placebo should be included if deemed relevant.This puts a finger on a crucial point, which reflects the personal ideas of those involved in the debate. One argument is that as everything belongs to the “gestalt” or pattern of the proving, then it can be included if it is perceived to be due to the dynamic of the proving, whether the person took placebo or not. This is working along the lines of many thinkers, including people like Rupert Sheldrake, who wrote the book “A Science of Life”, discussing the theories of patterns of vibrational/energetic influence, be it genetic, species, cultural or other “dynamic” influences.

This way of thinking has definitely infiltrated the homeopathic world, as part of the evolving holographic paradigm. The question is whether the link can clearly be made in bringing together the common phenomena of the proving “gestalt”. Those that criticize this rationale question the scientific basis of including the information gleaned by the placebo provers, or for that matter, any extraneous experiences occurring during the proving. However, perhaps it is better to question that all data needs to clearly follow the general protocols for inclusion, however they are found. How many people experienced similar things? Do those symptoms create a recognizable pattern that can be attributed to the “primary” effect of the substance being proved? Rajan Sankaran discusses this in his provings and does include material gleaned from placebo participants, seeing a phenomenological connection between the placebo reaction and other provers. Personally I have chosen not to include any placebo reaction as why have have a placebo at all if one is going to include their experience. Even though I think it could be possible for some kind of synchronous effect to take place, the importance to establish some kind of consistent methodology for provings, and the risk that too much extraneous information will be included in the proving makes this type of information questionable.

The other argument, put forward by Herscu, is that as Homeopathy established the notion of placebo protocol, we should adhere to it, partly as a means to prove our scientific authenticity within the dominant paradigm. I would suggest that whether one chooses to use a placebo control or not, the important thing is to be able to show the impact of the proving substance, to verify its effect on the provers and reproduce this information in a clear way. Whether one uses placebo or not is not a crucial factor. It is more important, if at all possible, to mask the remedy being proven. Provers should not know what the remedy is, unless unavoidable. It is still possible to get good information from provers if they know the remedy being proven, but the possibility of projection is that much more likely. The question is two-fold: are we trying to merely glean information to aid us in our clinical use of a remedy, or also trying to validate homeopathic methodology for the scientific community?

Herscu makes a good argument for why placebos should be used and more importantly, why proving information gleaned from them should not be included in our materia medica. I tend to agree that placebo information should not be included, as well as other “extraneous” material not directly related to the prover’s experiences (unless it is categorically replicated by a number of provers). However, for most proving coordinators, using placebos at all seems a waste of time and a waste of potentially good provers. Unless one feels that there is something to prove about homeopathic methodology to conventional medical researchers, then why bother using them. Many homeopaths feel that the notion of using a placebo control is part of an atomistic and outdated model of thinking. However, Herscu’s position is a more conventional one and his book reflects his position on the need to validate homeopathy by conventional medical methods.

Herscu also discusses the situation where much of the background “noise” of people’s experiences are included in provings today, creating a “soup-like” situation where many provings seem so alike, and how, even if certain placebo provers do tune in to the resonance of the situation of the proving, they are most likely just evoking their own symptoms (secondary symptoms), not the primary symptoms of the substance. He also states that when people focus on their own situation more intensely, as occurs in a proving, they of course feel things more acutely, which both provers and placebo participants can do, in both cases challenging the validity of symptoms exposed. This has been seen in provings where some of the listings and categories produced are very similar to other provings, such as general anxiety, sexual themes, anger, dreams etc.

He also critiques many of the more “modern” methods of doing provings – from meditation and dream provings, provings done in seminars etc, and the conclusions drawn that “everything” that occurs during the time of the proving is somehow attributable to the proving. He questions the validity of information derived from some of these methods. However, there is evidence that some real information may be able to be derived from these methods if evaluated well enough. The question, as always, is can this information be objectively verified? Is it True? In an interesting book, “The Homeopathic and Meditative Proving of Emerald”, by Ross and Campbell, they make a inquiry into the proving of Emerald, having been inspired by the 11th century nun and mystic, Hildegard of Bingen. They show a comparative study of the information gleaned from a traditional proving, a meditation proving, gem elixirs and crystal therapy, all forms of knowledge of Emerald. They list the types of meditation provings done, and the problems they had in doing them. They also explain how they attempted to be as“scientific” as possible when doing the traditional proving. What is interesting is to see the connections between these various methods. They commented on the similarities between the meditation proving and the information on emerald from gem elixirs. The authors do state though that meditation provings should generally be used to support the evidence derived from traditional provings, and that if meditation provings are to have any validity, those meditating cannot know the remedy they are contemplating. The authors also go to a lot of trouble to present the material in an accessible way to the reader. So, these authors have attempted to explore the validity of different proving methods and other provings should be done in a similar way to show whether there is a clear link between a traditional proving and one done by less formal methods. If all other variables are controlled, then it should be possible to see if a similar result can be achieved.

Rajan Sankaran also discusses the effect of doing seminar provings and dream provings. He believes that the group consciousness effect does occur, and this is often revealed in the emotional and dream arena. This is exactly the point when a more orthodox analysis of provings would dispute the authenticity of this effect. The argument would be that most of what occurs is a projection of vague psychological dynamics, stimulated by the anticipation of doing a proving. Of course certain connections could be achieved but are they really significant and due fundamentally to the remedy given, especially when given in a single dose, the method Sankaran used. As Herscu points out in his book, why would many people react to a single dose of a remedy that they may not be susceptible to, similar to taking a remedy. Usually nothing happens when the wrong remedy is given. Why is that any different in a proving? Sankaran and others argue that there is a collective effect, above and beyond the impact of the single dose given to one individual, a kind of collective ripple effect. Herscu then asks the question where does the proving begin and end as there are no boundaries when thinking in this way. Everything that happens around the time of the proving can be due to the proving, taking Jung’s concept of synchronicity to ridiculous lengths.

There are interesting points made on both sides of this argument and especially when trying to address a level of standard proving methodology. Surely, however, the goal of all this is to strive to perceive the “truth” of the total effect of any remedy when taken in a proving. It also needs to be said that as we are dealing with an “energetic consciousness” when taking a homeopathic remedy or doing a proving, seeing the “boundaries” of the effect of this process is a subtle one. This is not unique to homeopathy. In forms of therapy that look at family patterns or “constellations” there are definite “field” effects within a family; an energetic web that connects families together and also connects all people in whom a strong relationship is established. In other words, when initiating a proving process, a unique energetic consciousness is created and those that enter that energy may be affected by it, whether they take the remedy or not. The question is whether they are sensitive to it. This is why proving coordinators can experience an effect from a proving, even when not taking the remedy. They still become part of the process and are sensitized to the energy of the proving. In the proving of Nicotiana rustica (published as Tobacco, An Exploration of Its Nature Through the Prism of Homeopathy), each prover’s notes were studied initially to see if there was any effect from the remedy at all. After careful study, it was concluded that all the provers did produce some effect from the remedy. A few people had very “glancing” effects, which didn’t last long at all, whereas others had much more profound effects. However, the criterion for inclusion was the replication of the effects of the proving, and the ability to see the patterns being revealed. In some provers, the majority of symptoms were not included. Only if they were seen to be consistent with other’s experiences, or if symptoms were unique and highly original for a person, were they included. It is still possible that some of the effects were due to a heightened state of consciousness precipitated by the proving process, giving a kind of background “vibration” or “noise” as Herscu states, and it is a delicate task to decide where to draw the line. However, given the criterion of only including information if it can be replicated by others, any extraneous information should not make much difference to the overall proving.

The determination of how many doses to give a prover also is hotly debated. The generally accepted method, following Sherr’s example is to give the dose up to 3 times a day for 2 days and then wait. However, if something happens before, then the remedy should be immediately stopped. Another way is just to give one dose, wait for 3 days and if nothing happens give another 6 doses over 2 days and then wait again. However, this method still begs a certain optimism in the number of people who are going to react to only a few doses, and it makes sense, in order to maximize the effect, to give the remedy 3 or even 5 times a day for up to 5 or 7 days in order to see if more people are affected. Of course, if the remedy has any effect, then it should be stopped immediately.

Herscu discusses the question of potency in an interesting way, the potency and dose depending on the nature of the substance, whether it is a poison or not. If it is not toxic, he suggests beginning with a lower potency – 3c, 6c, 12c to begin with, and then moving up from there. He suggests that those who react to the lower potency can then be given a higher potency at another stage of the proving, which makes sense in order to maximize the information from the proving, using provers who have shown some sensitivity already. For more toxic substances, he suggests using a 30c potency to begin with. He actually states that a proving could be done in 3 phases: the first phase being a study of toxicology of a substance, the second being on a mid-sized group of provers to reveal general characteristics and the third being for those who have shown extreme sensitivity to the substance. While that would be ideal, it makes the proving process that much longer still in order to explore the most complete possible picture of the proving substance.

The number of provers that constitutes a proving is another interesting question. It would seem that around 10 people is a minimum to reveal any collective effect, although some of Hahnemann’s provings had less than 10 participants. Of course, it would be possible for 3 people to do a proving if they are sensitive to the substance, and some image of the substance would be revealed; but it would only be just a very partial picture. A more ideal size would be 15 – 30 participants and if possible to have another phase, for 5-8 people to take the remedy again in a higher potency. One of the criticisms of Sankaran’s provings was that he only used 5 or 6 provers in two of them and 10 in a few others, making the results more questionable, as well as the inclusion of placebo information. Also, his proving of Coca Cola, done with a single dose of the remedy and given to participants of a seminar in San Francisco did seem rather “experimental” and incomplete.

One factor discussed by Sankaran and others is how to simplify proving methodology. Many of his provings were done without supervisors to evaluate each individual prover, the provers reporting directly to him. Although that may not seem as thorough as each prover having a supervisor, (even if he doesn’t know the remedy), in fact, the results achieved have been effective and elucidated some clear symptoms and themes of the provings. An argument can be made that this may be more effective in some ways than the more complicated process of provers, supervisors and master supervisor, which creates levels of complexity which leads to a more confused final image. Some of the more exhaustive provings, even with thorough methodology, do not seem to create a clearer image of the remedy being proven. The onus on provings of the 2nd type is to ensure that supervisors are not only well-trained for the process but also that the proving is done expeditiously and doesn’t take too many months to complete. When that occurs, some of the essential experiences of the proving can be lost. Therefore, an argument can be made that both methods are valid and relevant for us when doing provings, the onus being on creating a precise and concise image of the remedy being proven. Herscu’s argument for the need for homeopathic proving methodology to conform to standardized double-blind control trials—to accommodate the need to “prove” homeopathy to conventional research—is perhaps not that relevant an issue to most people involved in doing provings.

These are some of the themes and debates regarding proving methodology. There have been a huge number of provings done in the last 10 years, the methodology has been very varied, some much more experimental than others, and the remedies chosen have also been controversial. The clinical relevance of Berlin Wall or Cell Phone is open to debate, especially considering that many older remedies could do with being re-proven. There is a good argument that a level of accepted protocol would be good for the profession and which would protect the quality of material going into our repertories and materia medica. It is perhaps the biggest flaw of the homeopathic method that extraneous material gets into our books and becomes “true” by the mere fact of its inclusion. This was the case in Hahnemann’s time as much as it is today, which is one reason why the proving methodology needs to be discussed. It is also why knowledge of a substance needs to be gleaned from as many sources as possible, always seeking to connect the essential themes and clinical possibilities in the most systematic and complete way. Only time will tell how successful we are in this process in our experience in the clinic.

The transition of a proving to it’s clinical usage is a crucial process in the evolution of a new remedy. It is similar to giving birth to a child and watching the child grow. A proving is like giving birth, it is just a beginning and it is only in the clinical use of a remedy that the proving becomes more real and three dimensional. Prior to that, it is mainly only an assortment of phenomena – of raw details empty of context (and it may be argued that one of the problems of modern provings is the attempt to give them too much context and meaning prior to clinical verification). The clinical application and effective use of a remedy is where the real growth occurs and where we learn about the remedy in its most important way. The proving gives the foundation for this to occur and solidifies its clinical authenticity. It can be argued that a substance doesn’t really need a proving at all, that it’s image can be gleaned through clinical experience only, which has been seen in recent years with some mineral/metal remedies found in the periodic table which have been given based on more theoretical ideas of their potential use. Others would argue that even if these substances work, it is not real homeopathy as only provings can give validity to their use as a homeopathic remedy. However, as Frans Vermeulen has argued, the authenticity of provings has at times been over stated and the need for studying essential details of a substance from every possible source is necessary to give a solid foundation for clinical usage of a substance. As Vermeulen has also clarified, a lot of the documented knowledge of a remedy listed in materia medica and the repertory is based on clinical observation, not just provings, emphasizing again the crucial need of the profession to collate and further document clinical efficacy of remedies.