On which proving were done by Hahnemann

1. Volunteers who were healthy and presented themselves to Hahnemann for doing proving / experimentation?

2. Patients who came to see hahnemann for treatment but Hahnemann started proving over them?

3. Most of the medicines Hahnemann proved on himself? He did not take help from others?

Please clarify?

It is my understanding that the majority of the medicines were proved on only Hahnemann and his wife. Vermeulen speaks about a few other people, maybe two or three that were also in the process. I would recommend reading Vermeulen's introduction to his concordant materia medica. In which he states that the provings done in Hahnman's day are not truly as accurate as we have always believed as many of the symptoms that have been recorded were from Hahnemann himself and him only. Therefore one has to ask would his "constitutional" have impacted on his proving symptoms? For example if he were a magnesium he would experience emotions very differently than if he were perhaps a kali carb or a calcarea? This topic is very interesting and Vermeulen explores it in depth stating that the homeopathic materia medica should be redone and should be based on new more controlled provings as well as the doctrine of signatures. An interesting thought? ( I hope this helps and answers your question?)

Why not just read the Materia Medica Pura? It's got all the information about who proved what and when, and what was proved.

__________________
...and deliverance has many faces<br />but grace<br />is an aquaintance of mine

So are you saying Nicole that Vermeulen is of the opinion that there should be a standardised format for provings and the Hahnemanns provings are thus not neccessarily valid? It sounds like a more scientific approach, and whilst it would not be popular is a very interesting idea. This would surely mean starting afresh for just about everything ?

That's exactly what he seays. I attended a seminar of his last year and his approach was very confronting. It made us rethink what we have always hung our hat on - the validity of our provings. He continues to say that they are not valid and that they all need to be redone as they are not accurate as they were only proved by a handful of provers. This is why he uses the doctrine of signatures and immense research. I'm not sure if you are familiar with his books but they are very deep and intense in their scientific validity. A must for every homeopath in my opinion.

No i'm not familiar with his works, could you post the full titles and/or ISBN numbers?

Well, it is also true that many of the provings conducted by Hahnemann during his lifetime were also repeated after he died, by homeopaths and provers in many other countries. This is how we have "polycrest" remedies--each proving not only elucidated variety in remedy responses, but also confirmed, repeatedly, the symptoms which arose in the first "less accurate" (if you want to call them that) provings. And we also have 2 centuries' worth of clinical data on each remedy's use which not only confirms those proving symptoms but adds to them as well.

I think Vermeullen makes a valid point...but I also don't think the original research conducted by Hahnemann and his colleagues should be dismissed so out of hand. Remember, real scientists don't often have the "formal structure" we associate with "modern science"--they just have curiosity and the resources at hand. Hahnemann may have only had one or two willing provers for specific remedies...later, he may have had more. Hahnemann may have also taken great pains to keep clear records on his own case before and after provings, in order to distinguish what symptoms were his own and what symptoms were the result of the remedy. This is still done with every prover, so it's very likely Hahnemann insisted on these records being kept.

I agree that not every scientific experiment conducted is absolutely fool-proof and water tight, but repeated provings of the MMPura have turned up the same symptoms over the course of the last 200 years. So, in my mind, those original provings are still very good sources of information--particularly for understanding isolated proving symptoms in their proper context. Point is, however, that you should seek out proving notes on your own, and judge their worth to your inquiry with your own mind. There is so much information in the legacy of homeopathy that no one has to be told what to think, or find themselves limited to "only one source".

__________________
...and deliverance has many faces<br />but grace<br />is an aquaintance of mine

Please read the thread 'Which technique Samual adopted for proving'.

__________________
Shirley Reischman

Thanks for your input!

this thread is really pretty irritating. the question is legitimate, but so many posts blather on about this guy's interpretation of hahnemann's method of working, and concluding from so-and-so's report of this guy's interpretation of hahnemann's method of working, that we ought to start over at the beginning ... and nobody bothers to even look at the mmp or cd, in which one finds that most if not all remedies described are proven not only by H himself, but by a small cadre of provers, many of whom worked with H repeatedly over the years ... and also there is much data drawn from existing sources that identifies already known symptoms associated with the remedies. this much is easy, to see that the idea that H proved remedies only on himself is not accurate.

quote (sreichsman): "Please read the thread 'Which technique Samual adopted for proving'."

thanks for the link: a very valuable discussion. i enjoyed jw's contribution enormously.

as for the scientificness of hahnemann's work, this is an interesting topic but very difficult to discuss meaningfully on-line ... or even off-line! fact is, the body of his work as stood the test of time. the remedies still work. experts may know of modifications needed here or there, and in the future there may be a new wunderkind who re-shapes the founder's opus in a dramatic new direction. but i think it is misguided to play so lightly with the work of someone like H. a little humility, people. imho, the man ranks with freud, piaget, darwin, as penultimate master of observation, experimentation, analysis, and organization of data. mmp. cd. origin of species. the interpretation of dreams. principia mathematica. masterworks. correct them if you must and if you can thoroughly document your reasons. but enter here with caution. a little humility, people.

i think it was sankaran (whom i admire) who criticized aspects of H's provings, mentioning at one point, supporting his skeptical view of the reliability of H's findings, that at one point H produced the identical symptom in consecutive provings of 5 remedies, concluding that H's mood or state of health at the moment influenced his observations. which is possible ... but also possible, out of the numerous provings H conducted over so many years, is that 5 consecutive provings produced an (! ... i.e., not 30) identical symptom. it's something like a penny coming up heads 5 times in a row. not really that remarkable, and proof of nothing in terms of flawed observation. in this thread, i think such sentiments rather reflect the commentator's habit of jumping to conclusions.

i second the suggestion to read the thread 'Which technique Samual adopted for proving'.

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.