British Homoeopathic Journal April 1995, Vol. 84, p. 127

Proving potencies SIR- - I wonder how Campbell I can hope to gain more reliable information from clinical practice, considering it is subject to the same objections as provings, but without any of the controls!

Theoretically, provings form a sound phar- macological basis for homoeopathic philoso- phy and must not be discarded lightly.

Campbell states that modern provings have been disappointing but those carried out by Templeton and by Raeside in 1940-60 did produce results with 30c potencies!

These provings were double-blind, with a modified cross-over procedure, which avoid- ed any possible carry-over of proving symp- toms into the placebo group. Dr Raeside lat- terly did not use controls, because of the absence of symptoms in the placebo group, as Dr Templeton had also found.

I suggest that the use of cross-over is the cause of the confusion and I notice some experts are now doubting its wisdom.

Perhaps Dr Campbell might care to review his views.

Reference 1 Campbell A. Proving potencies. Br Hom J 1994; 83: 248.

C. OLIVER KENNEDY C/O 8 The Causeway

London N2 0PR

S I R - - D r Kennedy is r ight to ques t ion whether the clinical symptoms of much of the materia medica are more reliable than the proving symptoms, but that is hardly a reas- suring thought.

The idea that much of homoeopathy is not based on provings is not new. Bodman, 1 for example, pointed this out for Lycopodium as long ago as 1936. In the early 1980s I made a study of some of the homoeopathic medi- cines in Richard Hughes 's Cyclopaedia of Drug Pathogenesy, 2 which is the main record

we have of nineteenth-century provings apart from Hahnemann 's own material. It was possible to classify the accounts into three broad groups. Some substances, such as lead, mercury, arsenic and phosphorus, which are clear ly toxic, produced the kinds of effects that would be expected. A second group which are not potentially lethal, such as Thuja 3 and Rhus, 4 also produced definite and unmistakable effects and these were among the most interesting I found. The third group, which contained some of the best known polychrests, produced very few con- vincing symptoms at all and certainly nothing remotely resembling the elaborate 'drug pic- tures' that are taught to students. My impres- sion of Lycopodium, 5 for example, agreed c losely with that descr ibed by Bodman. There were also some homoeopathic prepara- tions, for example Moschus, 6 whose alleged effects were so implausible as to be almost certainly due to suggestion.

Some modern attempts at re-provings of standard homoeopathic remedies have yield- ed surprisingly few symptoms even when used in material doses. 7, 8

References 1 Bodman FH. The evolution of the Lycopodium drug pic-

ture. Br Horn J 1936; 26: 416-33. 2 HughesR.ACyclopaediaofDrugPattuggenesy. London1886. 3 Campbell ACH. Thuja--a drug picture based on prov-

ings. Br Hom J 1980; 69:182-7. 4 CampbellACH.Rlmsfromprovings.BrHornJ 1981; 70: 179-82. 5 Campbell ACH. Lycopodium from provings. Br Horn J

1981; 70: 94-9. 6 Campbell ACH. Moschus from provings. Br Hom J 1981;

70: 139-41. 7 Clover AM, Jenkins S, Campbell ACH, Jenkins MD. Report

on a proving of Pulsatilla 3x. Br Hom J 1980; 69:134-49. 8 Campbell ACH, Dickson Mabon H. Three modem provings:

Arnica, Bryonia and Pulsatilla. BrHomJ 1984; 73: 226-8.

ANTHONY CAMPBELL

The Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital Great Ormond Street London WC1N 3HR

Copy dates Copy for the October issue should reach the Editor by 1 June, copy for the January 1996 issue by 21 August.

127