A repertorial comparison of the proving of a homoeopathic complex to the rubrics of the constitutent parts

Abstract

Aim The purpose of this research study was to compare the similarity and differences of the rubrics from a proving of a homoeopathic complex (Cinnabaris 12CH, Hydrastis canadensis 12CH and Kalium bichromicum 12CH) in order to establish whether the symptoms are similar to the individual constituents, or whether a new remedy is produced when individual remedies are combined.

The research questions addressed by the study were: 1) Will the twelfth centesimal potency (12CH) of the homoeopathic complex produce clearly observable signs and symptoms in healthy provers? 2) Will the majority of signs and symptoms of the complex be similar to those of its constituent parts? Methodology The proving was a randomised double blind placebo controlled study involving 20 participants who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The provers were randomly assigned to either a verum (80%) or placebo group (20%). Provers recorded their symptoms in their journals for one week prior to administration of the proving complex in order to establish a baseline for comparison. The proving complex was in form of lactose granules dispensed in lactose powders. Provers were given six lactose powders, one powder to be taken sublingually three times a day or until symptoms occurred. The provers recorded all mental or physical symptoms experienced in their journals.

Once the proving was completed the journals were collected and symptoms derived from the recordings were collated and analysed. This information was converted to materia medica and repertory format. The researcher then analysed each rubric in order to establish if any or all of the three remedies of the complex appeared in that rubric. This comparison reflected the number of rubrics that contained the individual remedies of the complex. In this way the researcher established the rubrics that were unique to the complex as a whole. vi

Results A total of 337 rubrics were produced by the proving. The analysis of rubrics showed that 216 rubrics did not contain any of the three remedies; 72 rubrics contained at least one of the three remedies; 29 rubrics contained two of the three remedies; and 20 rubrics contained all three remedies. Eighteen new rubrics were identified. In analysing the symptoms elucidated, a definite polarity between symptoms was noted, including within the same prover. This was the case with mental and physical symptoms. A vast range of symptoms was produced, spanning 29 sections of the repertory, with the majority being physical, related to headaches were quite common amongst provers, pain in the abdominal region, pain in the extremities, eye symptoms such as lachrymation and pain, pain in the throat, chest and neck, skin eruptions. Sinusitis or rhinitis symptoms such as nasal itching, sinus congestion, nasal discharge and sneezing were observed. A significant change in appetite and thirst was seen. The main regions that had an affinity for the complex were the head, abdomen and extremities with pain as the main symptom.

Conclusion The substance did produce signs and symptoms in the provers, so Research Question 1 was answered with a “Yes”. Only a small proportion (0.05%) of the rubrics from the proving contained all three constituent remedies, therefore Research Question 2 was answered with a “No”. The results show that although the proving symptoms shared a small degree of similarity to the constituent remedies, the complex as an entity formed its own individual picture.