© Quarterly Homeopathic Digest, Vol. XXVI, 1 & 2/2009. For private circulation only. 61
52) These were distributed mostly amongst 55 of
the 95 medicines, since 8 only listed from 1 to
a handful of such inclusions, and the following
23 listed no entries at all from old school
sources (typestyles used below denote where
Provings appeared: RA [plain text]; CK
[italics]; RA + CK [bold italics]
Alum., Ambr., Amm-c., Amm-m., Ang., Bism.,
Borx., Calc., Carb-an., Carb-v., Caust.,Graph.,
Kali-c., Petr., Ph-ac., Plat., Sep., Sil., Staph.,
Tarx., Thuj., Thuja., Verba., Zinc.
53) Nenning contributes to the following (20)
medicines:
Agar., Alum., Ammc., Ammm., Barc., Caust.,
Dulc., Graph., Kalic., Kalin., Magm., Mang.,
Murac., Natc., Phos., Sars., Sil., Sulf., Sulac.,
Zinc.
54) GROSS contributes to the following (42)
medicines:
Agar., Ammc., Anac., Ang., Arg., Arn., Aur.,
Barc., Bell., Calc., Canns., Chel., Chin., Cina.,
Cocc., Con., Dig., Dulc., Ferr., Ign., Iod.,
Mang., Merc., Mez., Mosch., Natc., Olnd.,
Phos., Phac., Plat., Rheum, Ruta, Samb., Sep.,
Sil., Spig., Stann., Staph., Sulac., Thuj., Verba.,
Zinc.
55) FRANZ contributes to the following (37)
medicines:
Anac., Ang., Arg., Arn., Asar., Aur., Calc.,
Camph., Canns., Caust., Chin., Clem., Cocc.,
Con., Cycl., Dig., Hyos., Led., Marc., Maus.,
Mang., Meny., Mez., Olnd., Phac., Rhus.,
Ruta, Samb., Spig., Stann., Staph., Stram.,
Sulac., Tarx., Thuj., Verat., Zinc.
56) LANGHAMMER contributes to the following
(48) medicines:
Agar., Anac., Ang., Antc., Arg., Arn., Ars.,
Aur., Bell., Bism., Calc., Caust., Chel., Chin.,
Cic., Cina, Clem., Cocc., Coloc., Con., Cycl.,
Dig., Dros., Euphor., Euphr., Guaj., Hell.,
Hyos., Ip., Led., Marc., Mang., Meny., Merc.,
Murac., Natc., Olnd., Phac., Ruta, Samb.,
Spig., Spong., Stann., Staph., Sulac., Tarx.,
Thuj., Verba.
57) GERSDORFF contributes to the following (8)
medicines:
Ambra., Carb-v., Iod.,. Kalic., Lyc., Mez.,
Sep., Zinc.
58) SCHRÉTER contributes to the following (15)
medicines:
Agar., Alum., Amm-c., Ars., Borx., Calc., Iod.,
Kalin., Lyc., Magm., Natc., Natm., Phos.,
Rhus, Sars.
59) STAPF contributes to the following (44)
medicines:
Acon., Ammc., Anac., Arn., Ars., Asar., Barc.,
Bell., Bry., Calc., Camph., Canns., Caust.,
Cham., Chin., Cina, Clem., Coloc., Dig., Dulc.,
Hell., Hep., Hyos., Ip., Maus., Mang., Merc.,
Mosch., Mur-ac., Nitac., Nuxv., Op., Phos.,
Phac., Puls., Rhus., Ruta, Scill., Sil., Spig.,
Spong., Staph., Verat., Zinc.
60) Richard HUGHESř (HMP, p.22) ignorant and
mischievous comments on this topic have no
basis in fact. We ourselves prefer to call upon
the evidence of the Provings record and its
success in clinical practice, as a measure of
Prover capacity or validation. Such
misinformed criticism against
LANGHAMMER are even heard today, and it
makes one wonder as to their purpose Ŕ
regardless, their result is to brand these primary
sources as unreliable and thereby neglected,
whilst at the same time promoting the sales of
new, up-dated, and so-called Řscientificř works
on Materia Medica Ŕ as if a more scientific
record than that of HAHNEMANN on the
effects of medicines has ever been written!
61) FRANZ Vermeulenřs comments on this
subject, as found in his Introduction to Prisma
Materia Medica, provide one such mis-guided
example. By extracting and collating all
symptoms of each observer across a number of
medicines we obtain a proper perspective of
both their similarities and their differences Ŕ
we ourselves have begun such a process, and
have thereby reached an evidence-based
conclusion which does not support such views
as Vermeulenřs.
62) For example, if we compare the symptoms
contributed by LANGHAMMER to Colocynth
and Manganum (27 symptoms in each), we
find far greater differences than similarities,
and in addition we observe numerous instances
where these supposedly too similar symptoms
of a single contributor are indeed supported by
the adjacent symptoms from other contributors.
63) NENNING declares he abstained from Proving
medicines on himself, given the paralytic
condition [Lähmungsartig] of his right hand, in
order to put his contributions beyond possible
reproach (AHZ 3:14; 105, December 1833).
64) A similarity of multiple symptoms from a
single contributor could indeed indicate an
input from more than one Prover. Thus,
Vermeulen wrongly concludes (Introduction,
Prisma MM):
ŖEven HAHNEMANN himself… for, instance,
produced five times the Řdelusion of being
unfortunateř in as many Provings.ŗ