A homoeopathic drug proving of the fungus Pycnoporus sanguineus

Abstract

The fungus Pycnoporus sanguineus was selected for this research project because of its similarity in appearance to a human kidney. It was initially thought that a connection to the Doctrine of Signatures could be proved, however, this was not the ultimate purpose of this research project. The purpose of this placebo-controlled investigation was to determine the effects of the thirtieth centesimal (30CH) potency of Pycnoporus sanguineus on individuals of average health; in order to discover the totality of symptoms produced by the remedy so that it may be prescribed according to the law of similars, as required by Homoeopathic science. It was hypothesised that this study would produce a list of symptoms associated with this substance, Pycnoporus sanguineus, which, can then be used Homoeopathically (according to the totality of symptoms produced by the drug so that it may be prescribed according to the law of similars) in the treatment of disease where no other remedy has yet acted precisely and thus be able to cure a class of cases that until then could only have been partially covered by existing remedies (Sherr 1994:58). This Homoeopathic drug proving of Pycnoporus sanguineus 30CH took the form of a double blind, placebo controlled trial on 30 subjects who met all the inclusion criteria. Fifty percent (15 of the 30) of the subjects received placebo in a randomised fashion, so that neither the provers nor the researcher knew who was receiving placebo or verum. As an added control measure, the provers were unaware of the substance, which they were proving or in which potency it was being proved. The study design consisted of two groups: one control group with placebo controls and the other experimental group, which also has intraindividual controls in which the prover serves as his or her own control i.e. the recorded state of the prover prior to the administration of the proving substance served as a control or baseline for comparison to the prover under the influence of the proving substance. (Stephenson 1960; Vithoulkas 1986:150).