Helium Proving

The initial proving of Helium was conducted in 1995 by the Dynamis School Norway and was later re-proved by Silvie Gowan and friends in England. Further mini-provings have followed. During that year, I had the privilege of teaching five Dynamis courses concurrently: in California, England, Holland, Israel and Norway. As a proving is an inherent part of every Dynamis course, I had to choose five, different substances to prove. After a long search, I managed to obtain a potency of Plutonium nitricum. Naturally, I felt very apprehensive about this proving. At the time, no large-scale provings of a radioactive material had ever been conducted and, certainly, nothing with such an intimidating reputation as plutonium. I felt that it was only fair to ask the students if they were willing to prove a radioactive substance, without disclosing which one it was to be. I was sure none of the classes would agree. To my surprise, when I approached the brave students of Dynamis Norway with this question, they agreed to do the radioactive proving. The following week, I travelled to California and asked the same question. The California students also agreed. Later on, still apprehensive about this substance, I decided to do the Plutonium nitricum proving in England, where I could supervise it more closely. I planned to do four, other ‘positive’ provings to balance out the seemingly ‘negative’ Plutonium. I chose Olive (Olea europaea) for Israel, Yew tree (Taxus baccata) for Holland, Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) for California and Helium for Norway.

I had been planning to prove Helium for some time, as I had already proved Neon, and, ultimately, wanted to prove all the noble gases. All of these provings were double-blind: neither the provers, nor the supervisors, knew what the substance was. Moreover, provers were instructed not to talk to each other about the proving until it was over.

The interesting result of this unintentional experiment was that both the Norwegian group and the Californian group were under the definite impression they were proving a radioactive material. Yet, surprisingly, their provings in no way displayed any radioactive themes. On the contrary, a clear impression of Eagle emerged in the Haliaeetus proving, as did a clear image of Helium in the Helium proving. Neither proving contained any trace of radioactive imagery. One can thus deduce that knowing the proving substance does not necessarily bias a group of quality provers.

One curious symptom, observed in the Helium proving, was the distinct delusion of being an eagle. While there is a strong analogy between Eagle and Helium that could explain this symptom, I wondered, not for the first time, whether two provings conducted, simultaneously, could influence each other, even at a distance. I had seen the same phenomenon when the Salmon provers were convinced they had proved Wolf. Here, again, there is an analogy between wolves and salmon. However, the proving of Lac lupinum was conducted in the United States at the same time as the Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) proving was happening in England. This possible crossover may be explained in different ways: delusion, synchronicity, non-local effects and entanglement, the epidemic and sporadic nature of provings, or the simple interconnectedness of the universe.

That being said, Helium has produced its own magic. It is certainly one of the most remarkable provings I have ever experienced. By the very nature of its location in the periodic table, this proving touches on esoteric matters: God, the universe, our soul. It takes the mind to places where, previously, only imagination could carry us: to the mystery of mysteries, our origins.

Extracted from: Sherr J (2013) Dynamic Materia Medica – Helium, Glasgow: Saltire Books, pp.33-34.