English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of Sutherlandiafrutescens 30 CH on healthy individuals so that it may be prescribed according to the law of similars. It was also the purpose of this study to compare all existing indications of use of Sutherlandia frutescens to the proving symptomatology. This would allow a greater understanding of the plants spheres of action and would contribute to the formation of a comprehensive remedy picture by highlighting similarities and differences between the homoeopathic and traditional indications of use. The comparison also served to investigate whether Sutherlandia frutescens acts, in accordance with the fundamental law of homoeopathy, the law of similars, in traditional application. It was the intention of the study to shed light on the possible 'homoeopathicity', or not, of current traditional use of Sutherlandia frutescens, as opposed to overt pharmacology of phytochemicals. It was hypothesized that Sutherlandiafrutescens 30CH would produce clearly observable signs and symptoms in healthy provers. The second hypothesis was that the proving symptomatology of Sutherlandia frutescens 30CH would be similar to the existing indications of use. The homoeopathic proving was a double blind placebo controlled study conducted by four Master's in Technology: Homoeopathy students. A total of 24 subjects formed the proving group, 25% of whom (6 of the 24) were randomly assigned to the placebo group. The subjects were unaware of the substance they were proving and the potency of the substance to be proven. The provers also served as intra-individual controls by recording their state prior to the administration of the remedy, to provide a baseline for comparison after the administration of the remedy. Provers took one powder three times daily until proving symptoms appeared, but for no longer than 2 days i.e.: a maximum of 6 doses. Provers recorded their symptoms daily in a journal

A homoeopathic drug proving of Sutherlandia frutescens and a comparison between the homoeopathic drug proving symptomatology and existing indications of use