David S. Riley’s interest in the history, methodology and results of homeopathic drug provings began with his exposure to homeopathy in 1988 and his later study at the Hahnemann College of Homeopathy in Albany, California. The homeopathic drug provings published here are the result of his investigation of the research methods associated with homeopathic drug provings and contemporary research methodology. Dr. Riley has developed explicit and transparent research tools for (1) symptom selection criteria, (2) electronic data collection, and (3) blinding to reduce bias. These homeopathic drugs provings follow good clinical practice research guidelines (GCP) and incorporate the guidelines suggested by Dr. Samuel Hahnemann more than 200 years ago

For 1,600 years Dioscorides (ca. AD 40–80) was regarded as the foremost authority on drugs. He knew mild laxatives and strong purgatives, analgesics for headaches, antiseptics for wounds, emetics to rid one of ingested poisons, chemotherapy agents for cancer treatments, and even oral contraceptives. Why, then, have his works remained obscure in recent centuries? Because of one small oversight (Dioscorides himself thought it was self-evident): he failed to describe his method for organizing drugs by their affinities. This omission led medical authorities to use his materials as a guide to pharmacy while overlooking Dioscorides' most valuable contribution—his empirically derived method for observing and classifying drugs by clinical testing. Dioscorides' De materia medica, a five-volume work, was written in the first century. Here revealed for the first time is the thesis that Dioscorides wrote more than a lengthy guide book. He wrote a great work of science. He had said that he discovered the natural order and would demonstrate it by his arrangement of drugs from plants, minerals, and animals. Until John M. Riddle's pathfinding study, no one saw the genius of his system. Botanists from the eighteenth century often attempted to find his unexplained method by identifying the sequences of his plants according to the Linnean system but, while there are certain patterns, there remained inexplicable incoherencies. However, Dioscorides' natural order as set down in De materia medica was determined by drug affinities as detected by his acute, clinical ability to observe drug reactions in and on the body. So remarkable was his ability to see relationships that, in some cases, he saw what we know to be common chemicals shared by plants of the same and related species and other natural product drugs from animal and mineral sources. Western European and Islamic medicine considered Dioscorides the foremost authority on drugs, just as Hippocrates is regarded as the Father of Medicine. They saw him point the way but only described the end of his finger, despite the fact that in the sixteenth century alone there were over one hundred books published on him. If he had explained what he thought to be self-evident, then science, especially chemistry and medicine, would almost certainly have developed differently. In this culmination of over twenty years of research, Riddle employs modern science and anthropological studies innovatively and cautiously to demonstrate the substance to Dioscorides' authority in medicine.

Approach to study/learn Homoeopathy through objective type questions and answers is novel in homoeopathy but not to other systems. This method of learning has proved to be most successful way of studying a subject in the present day.

Summary: "Presents the fundamental concepts and materials of traditional Chinese medicine organized in a way that supports learning and teaching according to traditional principles. Each category is placed in the context of traditional theory and practice begining with a discussion of relevant pathologies (including the correct description of traditional diseases) and therapeutic principles used to address them" -- from the review.