The Organon of Medicine

Hans

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hans,

It's a long story because there is a great deal of literature.
Start with this puzzle:

In the Preparation procedure in APh 270:

"Mortar, pestle and spatula must be thoroughly cleaned before they are used to prepare another medicine. They are to be well washed in hot water and carefully dried, then thoroughly boiled for half an hour in a kettle of water; one might then set these utensils for a few minutes on top of coals which are just starting to glow".

Why was he doing this nearly 200 years ago? He didn't know what contamination/sterilisation were... and Pasteur had not been born yet. NOWHERE in his literature does he mention anything like contamination...wasn't known. In the Chronic diseases, there is just one hint that he didn't know what it was at all.

BE Friendly Hans! Back later.

Tim

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Pasteur came later, but Leuvenhoek had discovered micro-organisms about a century before, so.....

Anyhow, his precautions seem an overkill for biological contamination. They do, however, make sense for somebody who believad that you can dilute substances to 30c and still have an effect.

I don't see a big mystery, just good laboratory practice based on the belief that substances are indefinitely diluteable.

--- Nice enough for you?

Hans

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hans,

THAT wasn't good laboratory practice in his day. He invented it.
My point is HE DOES NOT SAY WHY HE DOES IT anywhere in his literature.

Neither the word "Contamination" nor its concept were known to him nor anyone. He didn't even use some other words to describe it.

ANS: It just had to be done for the medicine to work right.

It was an unknown variable that upsets the symptom pattern of the medicine - corrupts it with some of those symptoms associated with the previous medicines prepared in the mortar and pestle.

It needed that level of decontamination to remove that contamination completely.

Tim

 

Actually, this mortar and pestle thing is quite interesting. Several molecules of whatever he used over the years would still be left in the instruments, bonded to the sides regardless of almost any treatment, so anything he made would be terribly contaminated when diluted. Also, the types of instruments used would leave a "high" concentration of materials; for instance, for glass it would leave silicon, molybdenum etc.; For plastics, various polymers; for stone, various minerals and other chemicals. These compounds would be many orders of magnitude higher in concentration in the 30C dilutions compared to the starting matter. Something to think about Tim? Do homeo-manufacturers have to use the same equipment as Hahnemann used?

 

Quasi,

Good point. I meant to check that out with Hahnemann Labs. I know they use a Ball-mill for grinding the powders down for hours...not sure about their decontamination procedures. IT MUST HAPPEN for the medicines to be right.

Also note that Hahnemann would grind each medicine in the mortar and pestle for THREE HOURS, each time. Throughout his life, he always insisted in making the medicines himself. Didn't trust anyone else to do it right.

Four/five places in the Organon he repeats words to this effect: "If a physician really wants to help his patients, he must prepare the medicine himself". This level of repetition suggests there was something here he did not understand...i.e., the decontamination point you make.

http://www.hahnemannlabs.com/

Tim

 

Quasi,

I think his mortar/pestle/spatula were all made of something like sandstone. Someone challenged him with a point similar to yours in about 1830. Let me find it for you. They challenged him to run his prepartion procedure and a full set of provings WITHOUT adding the medicine to the lactose for grinding in the first step.

He did this test several times and found that the preparation produced no symptoms whatsoever in the provers, at any dose or concentration.

I found the reference, in "The Chronic Diseases" Page 130.


See footnote **. "Sugar of milk" is Lactose. He used lactose of the highest quality.

"** There were some anxious purists, who were afraid that even the pure sugar of milk, either in itself or changed by long trituration, might have medicinal effects. But this is a vain, utterly unfounded fear, as I have determined by very exact experiments. We may use the crude, pure sugar of milk as a food, and partake of considerable quantities of it, without any change in the health, and so also the triturated sugar. But to destroy at the same time the fear to which utterance has been given by some hypochondriacs, that through a long trituration of the sugar of milk alone, or in the potentizing of medicines, something might rub off from the porcelain mortar (silica), which being potentized by this same trituration would be bound to become strongly acting Silicea(1), I took a new porcelain triturating bowl in which the glazing had been rubbed off, with a new porcelain pestle, and had one hundred grains of pure sugar of milk, divided into portions of thirty-three grains, triturated eighteen times for six minutes at a time and as frequently scraped for four minutes with a porcelain spatula, in order to develop by this three hours strong trituration a medicinal power either of the sugar of milk or of the silica or of both; but my preparation remained as indifferent and unmedicinal as the crude, merely nutritive sugar of milk, of which I convinced myself by experiments on very sensitive persons."

Also, see footnote * for a reference to the use of lactose as a kind of placebo. hahnemann would give the patient "numbered powders" to take daily...most of them were nothing but lactose, but it kept the patient quiet. Homeopathic medicines take a long time to act - sometimes weeks without needing to take a single dose.

http://homeoint.org/books/hahchrdi/hahchr13.htm#P130

Tim

 

Does this make anything clearer?

Hahnemann resolved a problem into all of its components. The problem was human disease, and he conquered it.

Three things enabled this to be accomplished:

1. that in disease conditions, the body expresses the disease externally through many symptoms and signs, amenable to doctor and patient, and the combination of all of these symptoms are found to be unique for each type of disease.

2. he discovered and then honed many substances that mimic human disease symptom patterns. By very extensive research into the actions of these substances on people, he was able to unravel the components (or layers of complexity) of the "observed symptom pattern", and then was able to separate these components from eachother so that they were recognised and understood. He also found a preparation method for these substances that made them FAR MORE useful, both for the above analytical work, and as medicines because many more symptoms would appear in "potentized" preparations.

3. he discovered a natural law; that if a medicine can be found which closely matches, in symptoms, those associated with the sick person's disease, then, by using the medicine to further enhance these matching symptoms in the patient, the whole disease resolves completely.
----------------------------------------------------

It was through step 2 above that the layers of complexity to the "observed symptom pattern" were elucidated. These can be summarised, logically, as follows (though they were not discovered and identified by Hahnemann in this convenient logical sequence). Hahnemann knew he had a problem if his medicines were not behaving consistently or as expected. He had to determine the cause.

1. The substances used to make the medicines must be in simple, unrefined form. APH 123.

2. The preparation procedure must include COMPLETE decontamination of the Mortar/Pestle/Spatula. APH 270.

3. Distinction between symptoms relating to the Primary action of the medicine and the Counteraction (or secondary action) by the body (VF). APH 63.

Aph 63. Every medicine that acts to alter the VF, brings about modifications to health called the PRIMARY ACTION. The primary action is a product of both the medicine and the VF, but mainly the former. The VF is initially passive, and accepts the medicine's action. But later, the VF tends to oppose the influence by the medicine, and this is called the SECONDARY ACTION or COUNTER ACTION. And this opposite action usually matches the strength of the medicine's primary action.

4. When administering doses, must begin with small doses otherwise the Primary action symptoms appear too quickly and prompt an opposing secondary action; symptoms appear to swing back to the opposite symptom.

But, there is a separate kind of symptoms that present with "alternating actions", because their nature is to alternate presentation, i.e., swings between extremes. APH 115.

Aph 115: There are some symptoms occurring in the case of some medicines which are partially, or under certain conditions, directly opposite to other symptoms that have previously or subsequently appeared, yet they are not secondary action (i.e., the mere reaction of the vital force) but represent the alternating state of various paroxysms of the primary action; they are termed alternating actions.

When the Primary/secondary action symptoms are alternating, it is very difficult to distinguish between these symptoms and those of the alternating kind. They MUST be distinguishable for the essential recognition of this medicine's symptom pattern.

5. When a symptom pattern is carefully studied in the patient, the pattern may be distorted by the symptoms of a second disease in the background - normally a chronic disease. The doctor must do his best to match the "presenting symptom pattern" to that of a medicine.
When that medicine has completed its action, the totality of symptoms must again be assessed if the disease has not resolved. The characteristics of the remaining symptoms will direct the doctor either to consider this to be of the chronic disease type, or another of the acute type, and select a medicine accordingly.

6.Idiosyncracies: Particular physical dispositions are abnormally sensitive, and display more symptoms than other people. But these influences caused by the medicine ARE actually affecting ALL people, though they only appear as symptoms in so-called idiosyncratic people. APH 117.

Aph 117: Some symptoms produced by medicines only appear in very few healthy people, called the idiosyncrasies, meaning peculiar corporeal constitutions which, although otherwise healthy, possess a disposition to be brought into a more or less morbid state by certain things which seem to produce no impression and no change in other people. But this inability to make an impression on everyone is only apparent. For as two things are required for the production of these as well as all other morbid alterations in the health of man - to wit., the inherent power of the influencing substance, and the capability of the vital force that animates the organism to be influenced by it - the obvious derangements of health in the so-called idiosyncrasies cannot be laid to the account of these peculiar constitutions alone, but they must also be ascribed to these things that produce them, in which must lie the power of making the same impressions on all human bodies, yet in such a manner that but a small number of healthy constitutions have a tendency to allow themselves to be brought into such an obvious morbid condition by them. That these agents do actually make this impression on every healthy body is shown by the fact that when employed as remedies they render effectual homoeopathic service to all sick persons for morbid symptoms similar to those they seem to be only capable of producing in so-called idiosyncratic individuals.

There are about five more "layers of complexity" to the "presenting symptom pattern..will do them later.

Tim

 

"but my preparation remained as indifferent and unmedicinal as the crude, merely nutritive sugar of milk, of which I convinced myself by experiments on very sensitive persons"

this is not proof. He convinced himself, which is good. however, science is about using standard techniques to help other people understand and reproduce your findings. The methods used to show that the sugar of milk was uncontaninated are not disclosed in detail, but they sound as though because feeding the resultant titrate to people did not result in some form of illness, that the silica of the morter and pestel did not enter the lactose in any way. This is highly questionable, given that silica can be ingested in fair amount with no adverse effect on the human body. As long as the contamination of the lactose was low enough such that symptoms were not brought about, then this methodology would fail to find it.

Now, if the contamination is such that it does not have any effect, then what harm is it? In simple terms, none at all. However, basded on H's ideas that dillution can enhance the effectiveness of a medicinal application, even a small level of contamination would have a large effect on the final product.

And this is where we leave the scientific method, and begin getting into ritual. "Take the bark of a willow tree, and pulverise it on a granite slab for 5 minutes. Add a small amount of honey, and sit the mixture in the sun for 4 hours, singing prayers for the God to increase it's power. then brew the mixture with boiling water, and have the patient drink of it." You know what? that creates a liquid form of asprin which doesn't taste bad. However, by simply being ok with the preceived results, you limit yourself to accepting the application as is, grinding stone specific and all steps in order. Until you begin taking the above apart, and figure out what sections of the ritual are integral to the creation of an effective medicine, you are hobbling yourself as a medical practitioner. Until you look at the specific, you won't be able to produce asprin in controlled doses, at a low enough cost that homeless people can get ahold of some if needed.

I'm not saying that the outright refinement of the active ingredient of homebrew medicines is a good thing, this tends to lead to many bad things, from overdoses, increased side-effects, addiction, etc. However, by pulling out the active ingredients and all oft he other ingredients which act apon the active ingerdient, we can create medications which work, with fewer side effect, and with lower levels of resistance (in biological cases). One of the main problems we currently see in biological resistance, IMO, is that we only attack one receptor on the cell at a time, allowing some of the cell to survive. This is exactly what drives evolution. We need to kill all of the illness-causing bacteria in a given host if we want to slow evolution and resistance. The best way to do this is by using the same method used in warfare- attacking in more than one way at one time. Otherwise we need to develope new methods for dealing with illness, such as instead of killing the cuasing factor, we reduce it's effectiveness in cuasing symptoms. This is really, the best method for long-term desease controll, IMO. For instance, nearly all Cheetas worldwide are inffected with FIV, Feline Imuno-difficiency Vifrus. Normally this would result in the death of the entire population. However, the cats and the FIV, through a mass die off a few thousand years ago resulted in the cats being largley uneffected by the desease. The FIV gets a place to live, and doesn't need to eveolve it's strength as an illness because there is not evolutionary drive to do so.

Back to the top of this post, don't forget that a large number of people are allergic to lactose, so the idea that it is "nonmedicinal" by H's standards is folly. All things will kill you in large enough or direct enough doses.

 

River-wind,

Things were very different in Hahnemann's day. YES it should be tested, but if Hahnemann felt he had tested it. His words:

Look, this guy invented a medical system and took it all the way to the final product, himself. EVERYTHING done by himself. Are you implying that he would lie about it? Or be lazy and not check it out very carefully? NO!!! on both counts.

But now you want a DBPC test.


He actually prepared a grain of sand as one of his most effective medicines, called Silica. It was never corrupted by the sand from the mortar/pestle.

Anyway, must fly 'til tomorrow.

Tim

 

No, I don't think that he was an idiot. If you read my very first post, I was defending alot of his stuff as good and helpful. However, his equipment and knowledge was limited in that we have an additional 200 years of recorded evidence and expirience which was not available to him.
As such, much of his methods, while well thought-out for his time, have since been showed to have holes. I have no doubt that 200 years from now, my "sound theories" will be shown to be inaccurate. I just hope that parts of them will drive further study and understanding. There is no Truth; as more information is found, old theories must be refined or discarded.

DBPC test? what's that?
If it's a set of experiments which show that a certain set of factors can steadily bring about a desired result, then yes, I do. Eventually, enough factors (including each individual body, metabolism, state of mind, etc) will be included in that "set of factors" such that we can reduce the suffering that living things endure in their quest for survival and reproduction. why else are we doing medicine?

Have you ever spent time in a lab, doing these things yourself, and them taking them apart, chemical by chemical until you knew what the solution was made up of?
Do you know the chemical/physical structure of quartz and/or silica? And what do you think the mortor/pestel is made out of? Porcelain. And what is that made out of?

What about the sweat of H's brow as he hand ground this stuff for 3 hours? It would evaporate into the air and, presuming he did this work indoors, increase in consentration as time went on.

Maybe his medicines worked because he ate healthily and his sweat had high levels of some immuo-activiating chemical which could survive destruction by the gastric juices of his patients. Without taking the chemicals apart and seeing exactly what forces were at work, by simply going by symptoms alone, you'll never know.

Viewing the effects/results as H did is very usefull. it is required for any form of science. However, it is only part of what Science is. You then have to create a hypothosis, and test it in a manner which is reproduceable by others. If it should to be inaccurate, the thoery has to be modified or tossed out. Currently, we have enough evidence that H's theories were not accurate to justify modifying them. We do not have sufficient evidence to toss them out entirely, however. It is good to keep the originals on had, just in case we realise down the road that we modified his theories incorrectly. However, we should not hold onto the theories as gospel, because then we hurt the people we are trying to help.

More than one illness reside in a body at the same time. Therefore any occurances stating that this is not possible need alteration. simply referring to these illnesses as "broken" because they don't fit the rule we have established will result in inaccurate rules. they need to reflect the natural world as it already is, if the natural world doesn't fit the rule we invent, then the rule is inaccurate, not the other way around.

 

Hans

 

Hans

 

river-wind,

What theories? What holes? Explain please. "There is no truth". As I said, he did all the practical work FIRST, recorded his observations, and then proposed explanations for the results.

What he found was the truth...truth for 200 years, truth for evermore. This guy cured virtually all disease and left FULL instructions on how it was done. Medical Science NEEDS these instructions for problems like the many incurable chronic diseases, the failings of antibiotics, malaria's rise, etc.....Hahnemann cracked these, easily, without antibiotics...using nothing but the body's own resources.

DBPC is double-blind placebo-controlled testing.

Are they your words? You need to try to be clearer where you are getting this info.
Are you in medical research? Are you quoting from somewhere, here?

Yessir, I have a degree in Biochemistry & Physiology.
Your train of thought is not very clear to me.

Yessir. You have to actually make the point you want to make. Can't you see it as being ambiguous? There are about three possibilities and I will not be addressing all three.

Re. sweat of his brow...Hahnemann trained many people who subsequently made a name for themselves elsewhere in Homeopathy, including his son. So, Hahnemann was not the only person to get it to work right. Were all those homeopaths having this sweating problem?

That's really silly.

Hahnemann was a fully qualified doctor and chemist, and established himself as one of the best, by the time he gave up conventional medicine in 1790. His whole life was practical experimentation, in lab or the surgery.

These medicines do not have to be prepared in sterile conditions. It is the final dispersal of the medicines in the lactose that determines their effectiveness as medicines. Some impurities get in there, sure, but it does not affect the consistency of their effects.

This is all news to me. Please elaborate. If someone succeeded with disease 200 years ago where today we fail, WHO needs to test their theories?

"Theory" and "Law" had very different meanings to Hahnemann. Everything he did started with the practise, repeated many times until what he called "nature's laws" became established.

You are referring to the Organon Summary now.

More than one diseases CAN indeed reside in the body at the same time, AND present symptoms. But, taking ALL symptoms presenting and associating them with the disease being diagnosed was the only way, logically and practically, for his medical system to work.

You mean "defective"? I don't recall a broken.
Not "inaccurate rules". The problem had layers to it..had to be separated out, and procedures established to deal with them.

 

This is from Francine, should have been posted here but posted on the "Show THAT it works" thread"

 

Being a great supporter of natural remedies and eastern medication, I feel that using the bodies own defenses are a very important part of sustainable medicine. However, if this guy actually cure all diseases, and left Truth for us, then I would not be sitting here unable to swallow like a normal person. I have tried Homeopathy, through some of the more esteemed members of practicing homeopathic doctors in the Philadelphia area. I give credit to much of their work, however, I am personal proof that they cannot cure "all diseases", they were all unable to cure the Auto-immune disease which has killed all of the relaxation nerves which run along my esophagus (acolasia). Maybe they are doing it wrong, then? But I thought the directions were simple and clear? How could the top dogs be doing it wrong?

oh, cool, thanks I didn't know that Acronym

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

those are my words. I'm not currently a doctor, But i was pre-med in college. I decided against continuing for personal reasons, and because more years of school would have driven me nuts. I am looking at going back to school for veterinary or natural resource management in the next year or so.

Then, given your education, how can you even think about a chemical, made in a non-sterile lab, using morter and pestel methods, as pure?

"He actually prepared a grain of sand as one of his most effective medicines, called Silica. It was never corrupted by the sand from the mortar/pestle. "
Silica is an effective medicine, and can be prepared without being corrupted by the sand from the tools? What are the three possible answers to what the tools are made out of? Is one Silica?

Most likely not. My point was not that his sweat was the active ingredient. It was that there are many factors which do not seem to have been accounted for here.

yes, it was

which is part of the reason why I lend some creedence to his findings. However, there have been many Doctors who have gone the way of lunicy. Doctors are human, too. Even H himself.

This seems odd to me. How is the dispersal of a medicine in lactose going to determine it's effectiveness? Shouldn't the medicine determine it's effectiveness first? The delivery mechanism, logically, will have an effect on the final outcome, but it shouldn't be the main factor.

This is basic Scientific method. Observation, hypoth, experiment, theory, retest. As time goes on,t he theory is continually re-tested, and changed if need be. Middle School science

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yep, that is good science. But even though he decided to call them laws, it doesn't change what we call them today, theories. As you said, what we call things is different from what he called them (the words mean different things now). The theory must keep surviving test forever. Who should do the tests? the most quaified person currently available. Why should we keep doing them? To make sure that we are still using the methods correctly, for one. Social and language evolution could, and most likely will, result in a re- or misinterpretation of a set of instructions as time goes on. If you want H's methods to continue to be valid, we have to check to make sure we are doing them the way he wanted us to - the way that works.

sorry, yes I should have said "defective", however, that term has the same connotations as "broken", hinting that the problem lies in the infection, and not in the medicine.

Taking all the symptoms as a whole, and analysing based on that is a very usefull method for diagnosing and curing. Modern medicine tends to ignore that method, to the pain of many a patient. Often times, an illness will respond differently to one medication when a different illness is also present - taking all of the symptoms, and all of the causes at some point during diagnosis, together as a whole, is a very important method for finding the best single combination of ingredients for the medicine. Again, I don't discount Homeopathic medical practices outright. Much of it is usefull.

However, we also have to ability to decern individual pathogens, and attack them on a very direct level; a tool which should not be ignored. H's theories should be looked at by more of the current medical profession; as should traditional Native medicines from around the world, IMO. However, homeopathic practitioners should be fair, and take the same look at modern medicine. Maybe even question themselves in the chance that they may be wrong.

 

River-wind,

Interesting post. Will reply later. Busy on the issue above, discussed with Francine. If the PROVINGS, where Homeopathic medicines are tested for all their possible symptoms/effects by a group of healthy people (Provers), can be re-run under DBPC conditions, this would be a way into Science for Homeopathy.

Would appreciate your opinion on that issue.

Tim

 

Why do you keep asking people this? We have been over this repeatedly. And you discussed it on the JREF forum 10 months ago.

Yes, it can be tested DBPC, and it would improve the attention of the scientific world immensely. You are just going round in circles. Now, take the next step, if you are so interested.

If you are afraid of the cost, start with a self-test. You can make a DBPC test all by yourself if you will. It won't convince anybody, but you will know if it works before you start spending real money.

Hans

 

Francine/whoever,

The Proving Procedure, summarised from Hahnemann's Organon.

GENERAL POINTS:

Aph 108: Medicines are normally administered in moderate doses during the provings.

112: The secondary actions (counteractions of the VF) are not encountered at all in small doses, and usually barely perceived in moderate doses.

115: Symptoms with characteristic "Alternating Actions" (considered paroxysms, alternating in nature, within the primary action) are easy to confuse with the primary/secondary action swing.
This confusion needs to be avoided during the provings.

116: Variability of symptom presentation in the team of provers. Some appear in many provers, some only appear in some provers, some only appear in very few provers.

117: Regarding symptoms of the medicine appearing in very few provers; these provers have idiosyncrasies in their physical disposition that reveal the symptom. Although the symptom does not APPEAR in the other provers, it IS exerting an influence - this is shown by the fact that, when the medicine is used on the sick, this symptom can be seen to be active in the total picture.

121: Medicines vary in strength:
1) Strong substances alter health even in small doses.
2) Milder one need larger doses.
3) Weak ones need sensitive people.

122: The medicine's FORM must be simple, pure, unrefined.

PROVER PROCEDURES:

124: prover must take no other medicine on the proving days.
125: diet regulated.
126: trustworthy and able to make/record observations.
127: Provings must include both sexes.
128: Potentised form of the medicine far better at revealing the medicines full range of symptoms. The provers should take four to six fine granules/day of the thirtieth potency (30c), on an empty stomach, for several days.
129: When effects are weak, increase by a few granules per day. The sensitivity of provers is highly variable and impossible to predict, so must start with small doses.
130: If the FIRST dose given to a prover, by chance, happens to be the correct strength for an optimal proving, the PROVER will not only experience an easily distinguishable pattern of symptoms, but will experience the chronology too; note the exact time of appearance of each symptom. In this situation, the primary and alternating symptoms are unambiguous. Provers like this one are the most important to the proving.

The duration of the medicine can only be established by several experiments.

131: A more robust prover may need ever-increasing doses for several days before any symptoms appear (the symptoms WILL appear, though), they will appear in a mixed up sequence, and symptoms with "alternating type" of primary actions will be indistinguishable from the counteractions of the VP.

132: If the main objective of the Proving is the total symptom pattern and not the chronology of appearance/duration of action, the dose should be increased daily for several days.

133: The prover/doctor must DEFINE EACH SYMPTOM ENCOUNTERED WITH PRECISION: move around to observe whether it increases, decreases or disappears when moving the affected part; from walking indoors/outdoors; from sitting standing or lying; whether it tends to return when revert to earlier circumstance; modifications by eating, drinking, speaking (see Aph 132).

134: The symptoms of a medicine do not all come out in one subject, nor in each of his experiments. The proving is repeated many times by the group of provers.

135: Near the end of the series of experiments on a medicine, the provers rarely report something not already reported either by themselves or another of the provers. When no new symptoms are reported, the medicine has been exhaustively tested.

136: So, all the symptoms of a medicine cannot be brought out in each prover - but, after many experiments, it tends to be so.

137: The medicine proving can be most effectively accomplished by truthful, sensitive subject, temperate in all matters, and who
observes himself carefully after being administered moderate doses. The more moderate the dose, the more clearly the primary effects appear - these are the ones most worth knowing - before the counteractions of the VF.
But, if the doses are too large, both primary and secondary effects all come together, with very little accomplished.

138: Assuming Aphs 124-127 (above) followed, ALL SYMPTOMS OF ANY KIND WHICH REPRESENT A CHANGE TO THE SUBJECTS HEALTH MUST BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE MEDICINE, even if the prover has noticed a similar symptom in himself A CONSIDERABLE TIME BEFORE. It means such symptoms are associated with idiosyncrasies of this prover's physical disposition, but they are still brought out by the medicine.

139: The prover must write down clearly all his sensations, complaints, attacks, and changes in health the moment they occur, noting the time elapsed between taking the medicine and the appearance of each symptom, AND its duration if the symptom lasts a long time. The doctor examines the record of the prover, in the presence of the prover, immediately after the experiment is completed, or every day if it persists for days. The doctor questions the prover, while it is fresh in his memory, about the exact nature of each statement written down so he may amend it.
140: Doctor must manage the prover in the same way that patient's cases are assessed (see procedure for patients, Aph 84-99, and below).

(84)Patient/relatives describe patient's complaints; doctor writes everything down;(86)Doctor questions, gets details on those complaints(see Aph 86-99).

141: Self-Proving by Doctor. This is important because the doctor will experience for himself, and better understand symptoms. It will also bring about a more accurate proving in the sensitive healthy doctor.

143: Provings that use unknown persons commissioned to do the task at some distance are useless, as they are unreliable without all the rules above being followed.

 

You know why this is wrong don't you? If you don't then there is no point discussing controlled tests, because you don't accept controls are needed.