In homeopathy a proving is the observation of the application of medicines in healthy people, and worked in order to support (provide proof/ research)of the actions of remedies based on the law of similars. Allopathic medicine used clinical evidence to back up the designations of their medicines. Clinical evidence is the information compiled from the use of medicines on sick people using the trial and error process. Clinical evidence is important to disease that is constant, where every individual experiences the sickness in the same way, therefore can be treated in the same way. In Homeopathy clinical evidence was of little value because the medicines were tested on sick people. In order for homeopathic medicines to work they must be based on the law of similars, the medicines could only be tested on healthy individuals. Hahnemann’s system had the advantage in the case of individual diseases (based on the provings done by many people in order to achieve many variations of the symptom picture). His system was not based on the classification of disease but of the reactions of the patients to the medicines. This enabled his system to be so individualized that two people with the same diagnosis could receive different remedies. We see that provings are of utmost importance to this individualized approach and that clinical evidence is of little value to Homeopathy, but is still very relevant in allopathic medicine.