A homoeopathic drug proving of Carcharhinus leucas 30CH and a subsequent comparison with that of Galeocerdo cuvier hepar 30CH
Authors:   , Naidoo Nalini 
Published: October 2021

Introduction The aim of this study was to conduct a homoeopathic proving of Carcharhinus leucas in the thirtieth centesimal potency (30CH) and to subsequently establish and describe the symptomatology in standard materia medica format and then compare this symptomatology to Galeocerdo cuvier hepar 30CH. Methodology The homoeopathic proving of Carcharhinus leucas 30CH was conducted at the Durban University of Technology and was accomplished by means of a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial. Carcharhinus leucas 30CH was manufactured by the researchers according to Method 6, Method 8a and 10 of the German Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia (Benyunes, 2005: 36-39). The homoeopathic proving was conducted in the form of a double blind placebo controlled study of Carcharhinus leucas 30CH with a total of 30 healthy provers. The prover sample was divided into two groups by a process of randomisation. Twenty four provers (80%) comprised the verum group and the remaining 6 provers (20%) comprised the placebo group. The identity of the proving substance and the potency used was not disclosed to provers. Provers documented their physical, mental and emotional status for one week preceding the administration of the proving remedy. A comprehensive physical examination and case history of every prover was taken before and after the proving period. Provers were instructed to ingest one powder three times a day for two days but were told to discontinue the powders once symptoms arose. The duration of the proving spanned 6 weeks and throughout the proving process, researchers were in constant communication with all the participants. Upon completion of the proving process, journals were collected and the information therein was translated into materia medica and repertory format. This was done in order to acquire the remedy picture of Carcharhinus leucas 30CH. Thereafter, the symptomatology of Carcharhinus leucas 30CH was compared to the symptomatology of Galeocerdo cuvier hepar 30CH. Results The proving of Carcharhinus leucas 30CH produced a total of 590 already existing rubrics and 43 new rubrics. The majority of these rubrics were located in the MIND (127), GENERALS (64), HEAD (55), EXTREMITIES (50), and EYE (34). In regard to the mind, prominent features were apparent such as anger, anxiety, cheerfulness, an aversion or amelioration within company, difficulty concentrating or increased focus, varying delusions and fears and irritability. Pertaining to the head, headaches were evident with varying concomitants and modalities, with headaches predominantly affecting the forehead and sides. Sensations included dryness, heat, heaviness, perspiration and shaking. The extremities displayed symptoms primarily in the forearms, legs and thighs and sensations included paralysis, shaking, swelling and weakness. In regard to the eye, eye pain with multiple modalities were apparent, with symptoms related to the canthi and eyelids. Sensations included heat, heaviness, inflammation, itching and photophobia as well as a visible discolouration of the eye. Analysis of the results presented an understanding of the similarities and differences between Carcharhinus leucas 30CH and Galeocerdo cuvier hepar 30CH. Conclusion As hypothesised, it was evident that administering Carcharhinus leucas 30CH to healthy individuals did yield observable symptomatology. Additionally, it was apparent that various correlations between Carcharhinus leucas 30CH and Galeocerdo cuvier hepar 30CH existed