Common points, peculiarities and complementarity of two homeopathic provings' methodologies: trituration proving versus long term Hahnemannian proving

Background : Based on a multicenter pathogenetic trial carried out between January and April 2013 with four different groups in France, and using different provings' designs, this presentation describes which common points and which peculiarities were noted according to the methodologies used: trituration or long term proving.

Method : Two groups opted for the long term Hahnemannian proving methodology and the two others for the C4 trituration one. All were blinded, including the coordinators of each group, only the pharmacist was aware of the remedy. The four experiments were lead at the same time. The comparison of occurrences of the noted symptoms according to the methodology has been used to build the argumentation.

Results : The plant tested, Cuscuta Eeuropea, whose homeopathic properties are poorly known until now, has a very specific behavior being a total parasitic plant. This specificity together with several homeopathic symptoms, having detailed modalities, that have emerged in the four groups, offer a good basis for building an hypothesis on the inputs provided by each methodology. Some symptoms were mainly noted by the trituration provers, mostly linked to the initial energy coming from the plant, others were mainly reported by the long term provers and rather linked to the human reaction induced. The global picture was however present in both designs.

Conclusion : It seems that the use of these combined methodologies offers the opportunity to access a wider picture of the tested remedy.

Keywords

Pathogenetic trial compared methodologies - Trituration - Long term proving - Cuscuta europea