Original Article · Originalarbeit
A Homoeopathic Proving of Galphimia glaucaTeut M.a · Dahler J.b · Schnegg C.c
a Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité University Medical Center, Berlin, bSelters, c Osnabrück, Germany
Do you have an account?
- Rent for 48h to view
- Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
- Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
- Printing and saving restrictions apply
Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00
Introduction: Homoeopathic provings are a fundamental concept in homoeopathy. The aim of this study was to record the symptoms produced by a homoeopathic drug compared to placebo. Methods: Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with a 1-week baseline, 4-week proving, and 2-week post-observational period. Subjects: 15 healthy physicians and medical students volunteered as provers; 11 were randomised to verum and 4 to placebo. Proving substance: Galphimia glauca C12 compared to placebo; maximum intake of 5 days. Outcome measures: Proving symptoms according to ICCH definition and the number of proving symptoms. The proving symptoms were analysed qualitatively using the Boenninghausen method. Results: A total of 682 symptoms were observed in both groups. Galphimia glauca provers experienced states of exhaustion, weakness, lack of concentration, feelings of confusion, dryness of mouth, lacrimation, and burning sensation in the eyes. Two provers experienced an amelioration of their allergic rhinitis. Proving symptoms were completely reversible. The statistical analysis showed more ICCH proving symptoms for placebo (mean 72.3 ± SD 37.3) than for Galphimia (35 ± 24.2), but the group difference was not significant (95% confidence interval, –78 to 1, p = 0.097). Discussion: Although statistical analysis showed no significant group differences, we observed specific symptoms under Galphimia glauca that correspond to those seen in clinical studies of phytotherapeutic preparations, including relaxing, sedative, anxiolytic, and anti-allergic effects. Conclusion: Our results confirm the toxicological and clinical effects of Galphimia glauca compared to placebo, but the ICCH criteria for proving symptoms were not suitable to distinguish between specific and unspecific symptoms.
© 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel
Article / Publication Details
Copyright / Drug Dosage / DisclaimerCopyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.