了解哈尼曼药物学中的缺失环节

H. Tiwary, Nidhi Tiwary
{"title":"了解哈尼曼药物学中的缺失环节","authors":"H. Tiwary, Nidhi Tiwary","doi":"10.1055/s-0043-1769473","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Hahnemannian drug proving has been reproved and clinically verified in multiple geographical locations in the last two centuries. They continue to be the most reliable and useful proving records even today. However, in absence of daybook of these provings, many practical questions essential for its successful replication have remained unanswered. In this study, we have tried to understand a few of these questions such as why Hahnemann did not mention the doses employed in his drug proving. What were his actual instructions for the repetition of doses to the provers? In 50 years, Hahnemann's propositions for posology in drug proving changed several times. Which phase and posology have contributed maximally to the existing literature? Last but not least, is the drug proving in 30th potency ‘the best and final plan’ of Hahnemann? In the process of finding answers to these questions, some fascinating facts have emerged. Notably, to prioritise individualisation in drug proving, design drug schedules more often in a successively increasing fashion and lastly, to explore all ranges of potencies for proving till little of novel character could be recorded on subsequent proving of the drug.","PeriodicalId":283226,"journal":{"name":"Homœopathic Links","volume":"42 24","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Understanding the Missing Links in Hahnemann's Posology for Drug Proving\",\"authors\":\"H. Tiwary, Nidhi Tiwary\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-0043-1769473\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Hahnemannian drug proving has been reproved and clinically verified in multiple geographical locations in the last two centuries. They continue to be the most reliable and useful proving records even today. However, in absence of daybook of these provings, many practical questions essential for its successful replication have remained unanswered. In this study, we have tried to understand a few of these questions such as why Hahnemann did not mention the doses employed in his drug proving. What were his actual instructions for the repetition of doses to the provers? In 50 years, Hahnemann's propositions for posology in drug proving changed several times. Which phase and posology have contributed maximally to the existing literature? Last but not least, is the drug proving in 30th potency ‘the best and final plan’ of Hahnemann? In the process of finding answers to these questions, some fascinating facts have emerged. Notably, to prioritise individualisation in drug proving, design drug schedules more often in a successively increasing fashion and lastly, to explore all ranges of potencies for proving till little of novel character could be recorded on subsequent proving of the drug.\",\"PeriodicalId\":283226,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Homœopathic Links\",\"volume\":\"42 24\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Homœopathic Links\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1769473\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Homœopathic Links","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1769473","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在过去的两个世纪里,哈尼曼药物证明法在多个地区得到了复制和临床验证。直到今天,它们仍然是最可靠、最有用的证明记录。然而,由于缺乏这些证明的日刊,许多对其成功复制至关重要的实际问题仍未得到解答。在这项研究中,我们试图了解其中的一些问题,例如哈尼曼为什么不提及他在药物证明中使用的剂量?他对试验者重复剂量的实际指示是什么?50年间,哈尼曼在药物证明中的体位论命题几经变化。哪一个阶段和哪一种姿势对现有文献的贡献最大?最后但并非最不重要的一点是,哈尼曼的 "最佳和最终计划 "是第 30 种效力的药物证明吗?在寻找这些问题答案的过程中,我们发现了一些引人入胜的事实。值得注意的是,在证明药物时优先考虑个体化,以连续递增的方式更频繁地设计药物时间表,最后,探索证明药物的所有效力范围,直到在随后的药物证明中几乎记录不到新的特性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Understanding the Missing Links in Hahnemann's Posology for Drug Proving
Hahnemannian drug proving has been reproved and clinically verified in multiple geographical locations in the last two centuries. They continue to be the most reliable and useful proving records even today. However, in absence of daybook of these provings, many practical questions essential for its successful replication have remained unanswered. In this study, we have tried to understand a few of these questions such as why Hahnemann did not mention the doses employed in his drug proving. What were his actual instructions for the repetition of doses to the provers? In 50 years, Hahnemann's propositions for posology in drug proving changed several times. Which phase and posology have contributed maximally to the existing literature? Last but not least, is the drug proving in 30th potency ‘the best and final plan’ of Hahnemann? In the process of finding answers to these questions, some fascinating facts have emerged. Notably, to prioritise individualisation in drug proving, design drug schedules more often in a successively increasing fashion and lastly, to explore all ranges of potencies for proving till little of novel character could be recorded on subsequent proving of the drug.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信