Nicotiana Rustica Proving
Remedy source:
The remedy was made up by Helios Pharmacy of Tunbridge Wells, England, using a piece of dried leaf of Nicotiana rustica. The substance is freely available and was bought on line at the website www.mazatecgarden.com. It can be smoked like any other form of tobacco.
Proving:
| Prover # | Sex | potency |
|---|---|---|
| 3. | Male | 12c |
| 4. | Female | 6c |
| 5. | Female | 12c |
| 6. | Female | 30c |
| 8. | Female | 6c |
| 9. | Female | 30c |
| 10. | Female | 12c |
| 12. | Female | 30c |
| 13. | Female | 6c |
| 14. | Male | 6c |
| 15. | Male | 6c |
| 16. | Female | 12c |
| 17. | Female | 30c |
| 18. | Female | 6c |
| 19. | Female | 30c |
| 21. | Female | 30c |
| 22. | Male | 12c |
There were 18 provers, 14 women and 4 men. 12 were from the San Francisco Bay Area, 4 from Southern California (San Diego), and two from Vancouver, BC, Canada. There were two placebo provers, one of whom dropped out.
The method of proving and analysis:
The proving consisted of a single blind study with two placebos used. Potencies used were 6c, 12, and 30c. Provers were instructed to take one single tablet 3 times a day for up to 2 days, but to stop at any point if an effect were noticed. On the day of the proving, all the provers from the San Francisco Bay Area met and took the remedy at the same time. For the next two hours, the group stayed together or took a walk alone. Any conversation was kept to a minimum and provers could not discuss their experiences when taking the remedy. The intention behind this was to create an atmosphere where the consciousness of the substance and of the provers could be elucidated more clearly. When beginning a proving in the midst of daily life, provers can easily miss more nuanced effects, so the environment was controlled to see if a greater level of consciousness could be achieved. Analysis of the proving symptoms showed that a few provers definitely had very immediate effects. This methodology has been one of the more disputed aspects of modern provings, some people feeling that it potentially distorts the authenticity of a proving and leads to false conclusions based on notions of the collective consciousness of the proving process. However, the main intention was to see if more subtle influences of the remedy could be perceived in this way.
About 2 hours prior to the proving commencement, a small earthquake hit the San Francicso Bay Area. Not everybody felt the earthquake yet the proving also reflected its influence. Commentaries and references to the earthquake were included in the proving as seemed appropriate. The possibility that the provers were in fact partially proving ’Äúearthquake’Äù is an interesting consideration. Given the notion of the synchronicity of events that seems to surround a proving, some connection between the earthquake and that of the proving might be speculated (or hotly debated depending on your position on these things). The symptoms produced did seem to mingle both influences, with the images of cracks opening up, and the feelings of falling and sinking, at times into the earth and at other times just a falling sensation. However, given the fact that taking the remedy, feeling the earthquake, and experiencing the first symptoms all happened around the same time, references to the earthquake became recorded in the symptoms in the same way as any other phenomenon. It should be noted though that some of these images ’Äì the crack opening up in the world, the abyss, the sinking feeling - were also characteristics found in the writings of Native Americans, (see above) especially when Mature Flowers is thrown into the abyss, holding tobacco in her hand! Also, in the case presented, the patient spoke of being on the edge of an abyss. Is this a coincidence or part of the dynamic of the proving? The significance of any phenomenon in a proving has to be connected to its replication in as many places as possible.
At both the place where the provers originally met to take the remedy and six weeks later at the prover’Äôs reporting meeting, a large map of the world was on the wall. These maps were commented on by one prover directly, especially in connection to falling into the world and the ideas of the universe which came up.
In analyzing the effects of the proving the only symptoms chosen were ones in which (ideally) there was no ambiguity as to their cause. Only new symptoms not previously experienced were included unless very similar symptoms were experienced by more than one person. So-called cured symptoms were omitted, as were any modified symptoms or old returning symptoms unless replicated by more than one person. It is debatable whether to include a cured symptom within the time frame of the proving, as other remedies might also ’Äúcure’Äù a given symptom, making the uniqueness of the effect questionable. In addition, including data outside of strictly new symptoms risks including effects that, instead of reflecting the substance's ’Äúprimary’Äù action, are mixed with the ’Äúsecondary’Äù reaction of the person, a situation seen in some provings. Some provings tend to include material that does not belong exclusively to the remedy but also symptoms more intrinsic to the person, perhaps being modified somewhat by the proving action and as such the provings become a mix of the substance action and the inherent qualities of the person. One could say that all proving symptoms result from this mixture, otherwise the remedy would have no effect, but given that the prover is incarnating the spirit of the substance, it is the ’Äúessential’Äù (primary) quality of that spirit that is significant, not the extraneous qualities of the prover. This relates to the inclusion of the return of past symptoms or current symptoms that are somewhat changed or altered. Their significance in a proving is relevant to the degree to which other provers had similar experiences and that the different ’Äúpattern’Äù due to the remedy influence can be deduced. If only one person experienced this shift, then it is not necessarily a unique quality of the remedy being proved, but more to do with the person doing the proving. Other remedies may have a similar effect.
Many proving substances can produce similar results and therefore many provings give the impression of being rather generalized, vague and difficult to analyze. This effect is further compounded by the blanket inclusion of these remedies in the repertory, where they dominate certain rubrics and are found so often as to be almost redundant. By deciding to include only emphatic symptoms, it is hoped that a clear image of the remedy can be seen and that clinical usage will further develop its picture.