null-C.C.R.H.
(Incorporating Clinically Verified Symptoms)
Experimentation of drug on apparently healthy human beings, in order to ascertain their sphere of action of human organism, is unique to Homoeopathy. Unlike modern medicine, where preliminary tests of drugs are conducted on animals, Homoeopathy employs systematic experimentation of drugs on human beings for whom they are intended to be used during sickness.
This kind of experiment (human pharmacology or Hyganthro- pharmacology as proposed by Stephenson), have been continuing ever since Hahnemann proved Peruvian Bark (or Cinchona bark) on his own person and, as a consequence, developed a number of morbid signs and symptoms. As on date thousand odd drugs have been proved on human volunteers in different parts of the world, and their pathogenesis’ have been included in the Homoeopathic Materia Medica. The fact that these pathogenesis’ have formed the basis for millions of successful homoeopathic prescriptions for almost two centuries establishes beyond any doubt the validity of the symptomatology of homoeopathic drugs as well as the technique of experimentation of drugs on human beings to ascertain their action.
There are more than two thousand drugs listed in homoeopathic literature, but unfortunately, not all of them have been proved systematically. Only about a thousand odd drugs have been so proved on human beings. The rest are either used on the basis of their toxicological effects on human beings or on the basis of their therapeutic use in other systems of medicine or simply on the claims in folklore. Therefore it is highly desirable that these drugs are systematically proved.
Hahnemann could only conduct the proving of drugs on his person and on a few others whom he trusted without maintaining control (who received placebo), and it goes to his credit that inspite of his limitations and hostility he had to face from medical community of his time, the provings he conducted are as valid today as they were in his time. But, later Drysdale introduced double blind technique of proving where neither the proving master nor the prover knew the name of the drug he proved. The new technique, he asserted, was essential to exclude the false symptoms which might contaminate the true pathogenesis of the drug, under the influence of the available knowledge about the action of particular drug. Later, concept of having a control group (which received placebo) was also introduced in order to make scientific evaluation by comparing placebo and drug’s effects. Hence later provings were made following double blind technique with a larger number of provers.
With the ever growing occurrence of newer diseases and discovery of newer drugs, it was felt necessary to make concerted effort to prove new as well as fragmentarily proved drugs in a systematic manner. Therefore the erstwhile CCRIMH undertook the proving of Cassia sophera.
Cassia sophera, an indigenous plant, commonly known as Kasunda or Baner in Hindi has been frequently used by ancient Indian physicians for its efficacy in respiratory disorders. In Indian medicine various parts of the plant namely bark, leaves, seeds and root bark are used for a multitude of morbid conditions, such as juice of the leaves mixed with sandalwood and lime juice is used locally in the treatment of ringworm and dhobi-itch and internally as an expectorant; infusion or decoction of leaves is used in asthma, hiccup etc.; root mixed with black pepper is used for snake-bite; infusion of bark or powered seeds with honey is stated to be good for diabetes; ointment made of powdered seeds, leaves mixed with sulphur or the paste made up of ground root- bark and honey is applied locally in the treatment of ringworm, pityriasis and psoriasis; infusion of fresh leaves is used in the treatment of gonorrhoea (used parentally) internally as an anthelmintic, and also for rheumatic and inflammatory fever, jaundice, and externally for washing syphilitic sores; and a decoction made of whole plant used as an expectorant in acute bronchitis and also in polyuria.
Homoeopathic physicians have also been using Cassia sophera, mostly in physiological doses (mother tincture) in the treatment of bronchial asthma, bronchitis etc. for quite some time, inspite of inavailability of its detailed pathogenesis. Pramanik and Mal reports its efficacy in respiratory dyspnoea, catarrhal type of asthma, and asthma complicated by bronchitis wherein it has proved to be useful in acute paroxysms.
Clarke in his A Dictionary of Practical Materia Medica, refers to Senna, the proving of which was reported to be made from leaflets of different species of Cassia of which Cassia obovata (Alexandrian senna) is the principal constituent. Senna is stated to be useful in colic, flatulence of infants, exhaustion, urates in the urine, sneezing with heat and sleeplessness. Choudhuri also refers to Senna in his A Study of Materia Medica. Apart from confirming what Clarke says about Senna, Choudhari suggests its application in oxaluria, phosphaturia and acetonuria. Pramanik and Mal also refer to a proving of Cassia sophera by B.K. Basu on his own person. The details of this singular proving are, however, not readily available. Basu recommended its use in asthma, common cold and cough (mother tincture, 5 drops twice a day for 7 days). he suggested that it be taken before sunrise followed by chewing of two and a half black pepper seeds. In view of the immense therapeutic potential of Cassia sophera in the treatment of a number of diseases, the erstwhile CCRIMH initiated its systematic proving at one of its research units at Lucknow (U.P.) in 1972 which lasted for two years. Later its second proving was undertaken at two other research units at Bhagalpur (Bihar) and Midnapore (West Bengal) in the year 1974 and that too lasted for about two years. While the first proving was aimed at obtaining true pathogenesis of the drug, the second proving was conducted for confirmation of the drug pathogenesis obtained during the first proving and also to ascertain variation (if any) in the genesis of symptoms under different conditions. Many of the symptoms obtained during the second proving were confirmatory of the ones elicited during the first proving.
After the symptomatic data collected during these two provings was processed, analysed and compiled, it was provided to the Clinical Verification Units of the Council for verification on the sick persons. Many of the proving symptoms have been confirmed clinically and also a few clinical symptoms were observed during the studies at these units. These symptoms have also been incorporated herein this monograph.
Selected Bibliography
(1) Clarke, J.H., A Dictionary of Practical Materia Medica, Indian Edition (1978), Vol. III,p. 1157 (India) Jain Publishing Co., New Delhi.
(2) Choudhuri, N.M., A Study of Materia Medica (1979) p. 676- 677, (India), Jain Publishing Co., New Delhi.
(3) Nadkarni, K.M., Indian Materia Medica, Third edition (1976), Vol. I, p. 290-291, (India), Popular Prakashan, Bombay.
(4) Pramanik, M.S., Mal, P.C., Respiratory Dyspnoea: Preliminary Clinical Trial of Certain Lesser Known Drugs (Cassia sophera, Tylophora indica and Grindelia robusta), Journal of the Hom. Med. Asson. of India, January, 1977 (India), p. 9-20.
(5) Stephenson, J., Hahnemannian Provings (1924-1959)–A Materia Medica and Repertory, Roy & Co. Bombay (India)p. iii.