Homeopathic pathogenetic trials and provings: the need for harmonized guidelines

Homeopathic Pathogenetic Trials (HPT, synonym: proving) are considered a pillar of homeopathy.[ ¹ ] The design is one of the first examples of systematic research on medicines, and it served as the theatre within which the first serious experiment with a placebo control group took place, in Nürnberg in 1835.[ ² ]

But time goes on, and at the beginning of the 21st century, medicine, and so too homeopathy, is appraised by the contemporary standards of conventional science. Some may argue, that Hahnemann developed the proving design and can be considered the last word on it, but we have also witnessed a revival of provings some 25 years ago, with a synchronous effort to formulate more explicit rules for the conduct of provings.[ ³ ],[ ⁴ ] The latest systematic review of the design elements applied in provings covered the period between 1945 and 1995.[ ⁵ ] Recent developments in provings suggest that even Hahnemann can be subjected to appropriate updating.[ ⁶ ] Time for reconsideration!

Since 1990, in parallel with a diversification of analytical techniques in the therapeutic practice of homeopathy, e.g. by Herscu, Mangialavori, Sankaran, Scholten and others, we have seen a diversification of proving procedures, e.g. by Becker, Dam, Sherr and Tuminello. Notwithstanding the methodological expansion of ideas, the clinical verification of proving data remains the ultimate yardstick of the validity of these new developments. Hering is said to have estimated that the average time between a proving and a fully established Materia Medica picture was 30 years, and in our view there is no reason for this interval to have changed since. There are several drivers of this reality, one of them being the quality of the proving procedure itself.

• References

• 1 Walach H. The pillar of homoeopathy. Homoeopathic drug provings in a scientific framework. Br Homeopath J 1996; 86: 219.
• 2 Stolberg M. Homeopathy on trial: the first double blind experiment of medical history in the year 1835 [in German]. Münchner Medizinische Wochenschrift 1996; 364-366.
• 3 Bayr G., Stübler M. Haplopappus baylahuen. Eine Prüfung mit den Potenzen D2, D3, D6 und D12. Heidelberg: Haug; 1986.
• 4 Sherr J.J. The dynamics and methodology of homeopathic provings. Dynamis Books; Malvern: 1994.
• 5 Dantas F., Fisher P., Walach H. et al. A systematic review of homeopathic pathogenetic trials from 1945 to 1995. Homeopathy 2007; 96: 4-16.
• 6 Witt C., Albrecht H. New directions in homeopathy research. Advice from an interdisciplinary conference. Essen: KVC Verlag; 2009.
• 7 Riley D.S. Extracting symptoms from homeopathic drug provings. Br Homeopath J 1997; 86: 225-228.
• 8 Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia Convention of the United States (HPCUS). HPCUS Proving Guidelines. 2013.