Homeopathic proving symptoms appear to be specific to the medicine and do not seem to be due to a local process. Since this was a pilot study using a small number of provers, rival hypotheses cannot be ruled out and the study needs replication.

We conducted two parallel, blinded homeopathic pathogenetic trials conducted at two different sites to determine whether symptoms reported by healthy volunteers were significantly different for homeopathic remedies than for placebos. Study 1 used a two-armed design, testing ozone against placebo. Study 2 used a three-armed design, testing ozone and iridium against placebo. We found significantly more remedy-specific symptoms in provers taking ozone or iridium than in provers taking placebo in the three-armed trial and in both trials pooled for ozone and placebo. We, therefore, conclude that homeopathic remedies produce more symptoms typical for a remedy than non-typical symptoms. The results furthermore suggest a somewhat non-classical pattern because symptoms of one remedy appear to be mimicked in the other trial arm. This might be indicative of entanglement in homeopathic systems.

No abstract

Problems with the conversion of provings into repertory language are being discussed and solutions proposed.

We are writing in response to the study of HPTs by Dantas et al. 1 We congratulate the authors on their effort to study and advance provings, but we must express our concern about some of the conclusions in the discussion. The authors' proposition that ''the theory linking symptoms detected in healthy volunteers to those treated in the sick is wrong,'' flies in the face of everything homeopathy represents.While we believe that it is worthwhile to explore the issues raised by provings through a research model because it invites academic debate and further study, we are concerned with some of the comments in the related guest editorial. It is surprising to read the statement, ''Despite a lot of effort, it remains very uncertain that HPTs yield valid results, capable of contributing to the cure of disease''. 2 It seems as if the guest editor is suggesting that none of our remedies work in practice. This is perplexing because we presume that he commonly uses Staphysagria, Aurum or Sulphur and perhaps on occasion, some modern proved remedies. It is one thing to raise controversial questions by publishing original research, but quite another for an editorial in a respected homoeopathic journal to so strongly condemn the historical provings on which our profession is based and which have proved themselves in millions of cases.We are keenly interested in how conventional scientific methodology can realistically study homoeopathy while maintaining its integrity and one of us (JS) has experience of conducting over 30 homoeopathic provings. From this perspective, we would like to offer the following further comments on the study and editorial.1. It is disappointing that the authors chose to study provings from 1945 to 1995 as this is well known as the weakest period of homoeopathic provings, both in quality and quantity. Using these low quality provings as a yardstick to invalidate homoeopathic provings as a whole is seriously biased.While admitting that HPT methodology has improved with each decade since 1945, the authors have chosen a cutoff point of 1995. In fact there was a renaissance of provings utilizing rigorous methodology following the 1994 publication of The Dynamics and Methodology of Provings which recommended exacting standards, including monitored pre-observation baseline, blinding of provers and supervisors, use of placebo, clear instructions to provers and supervisors, close supervision of provers, specific guidelines for selection of symptoms, and high ethical standards, as suggested by the study authors in their conclusion. 3 Unfortunately, because of the timeframe of the study, the authors have disregarded these improvements in modern proving methodology.2. One of the most disconcerting conclusions of the authors is that historical provings, including Hahnemann's, are flawed in methodology, are unable to withstand statistical analysis for reliability and therefore produce symptoms that are unreliable in treating patients homoeopathically.We find this a rash conclusion on the part of the authors. In the a...