|
Dear Friends, today we have with us in
our Hot-Seat, one of the most 'elemental' contemporary homeopaths
- Jan Scholten! Jan needs no introduction, still I would like to
share with you that he is a pioneer who has worked extensively on
the periodic table and has authored many books like Homeopathy
and Minerals, Homeopathy and the Elements, Repertory
of Elements, Secret Lanthanides etc. He has also founded
Stichting Alonnissos, a foundation that promotes homeopathy by the
publication of books, organizing seminars, promoting research and
supporting clinics.
MB:
Jan, welcome to Hpathy! It's great to have you with us today. I
am looking forward to a thought-provoking, exciting and illuminating
conversation with you. But before that I would like to start this
interview on an informal note. I hope you won't mind that.
Nearly everyone
in our community today knows about you through your work. But very
few among us actually know the 'person' behind the name and the
work. Can you walk us through your childhood and education? May
be we will be able to see 'The Man' in the making!
JS: There is not much special in my youth. I grew up in a small
town in the south of the Netherlands. I went to school as everyone
else. There is a medical tendency in my family; my father was a
veterinary doctor, 2 brothers are vets and my third brother is also
a doctor, a general physician.
The most peculiar things are more internal. I have always been
wondering about life and people, what drives them. I have always
been in search for the essence of life. Maybe that is why a test
showed that for me the study of biochemistry was indicated, so I
started studying that. The testers discovered my interest in science
and life and combined the two in biochemistry.
However it later turned out that for me biochemistry was too "dead",
it lacked life, the essence of life. So I went almost to the opposite
study: philosophy. But after a few years I discovered that the professors
were more interested in nice theories than really questioning the
essence of life. So I left.
After that I studied medicine. The theory was nice, but the practice
often did not feel good. I often had the feeling that patients would
have been better off not being in the hospital. At least, I would
not have liked what was being done to the patients. This was especially
the case in the cancer clinics. I also asked several oncologists
if they would like to be treated the same way and most said they
would not. Maybe I was too critical, but it was a long time before
I encountered homeopathy.
After graduating I decided to study as a general practitioner,
as I definitely did not want to work in a hospital, for the reasons
mentioned. During that time I followed some courses in alternative
medicine: acupuncture, orthomolecular medicine and later homeopathy.
I choose homeopathy as the last because I had the idea it was too
far off. But when I studied it I discovered that it was real medicine.
Stories of patients feeling young again, feeling their old self
coming back: that is healing.
Since that time I have only worked as a homeopath. In homeopathy,
it all came together, it was as if coming home. In homeopathy one
can find what moves people, how a body works and reacts to stress,
how it expresses the problems. Homeopathy is, in a way, a combination
of medicine, psychology, mythology, physics, philosophy, and sociology.
In a way, it in encompasses all sciences.
MB: I have heard so many people say
the same thing about cancer treatment. I wonder why the current
protocols of chemotherapy and radiotherapy are allowed?
Anyway, what was your first introduction to homeopathy like? What
'kind' of homeopathy were you first exposed to?
JS: The school I followed
was the classical one, based on the ideas of Kunzli and Kent.
MB: Were you attracted towards homeopathy
as a career choice just because of its philosophy or did you witness
some miracle cures quite early during your homeopathic education?
JS: I
saw the miracle cures in literature. That was what attracted me.
I did not have miracle cures in my practice in the beginning,
as one can hear from some other homeopaths. In a way I had to be
quite stubborn to go on, because my initial results as a homeopath
were quite poor. Or maybe my standard was too high.
MB: Was there any resistance at home
when you decided to make this unconventional switch?
JS: No. I just made my
choice.
MB: What was your early homeopathic
education like? Did you attend a full time college or chose a personal
mentor? Who were your early teachers and how did their teachings
and works influenced your journey as a homeopath?
JS: I
studied at the school for homeopathic doctors in Holland, the SHO.
I also followed many other courses: A course in the French homeopathy
by Dolisos, a Spiekeroog seminar by Kunzli, many course by Alphons
Geukens and George Vithoulkas.
MB:
Kunzli,
Geukens, Vithoulkas ..all great teachers. Was there something in
their teachings that pushed you to explore new territories ..something
that prompted you to ask questions about the 'natural' relationship
between medicinal sources, especially the minerals?
JS:
The only thing
that pushed me to explore further was that their teaching was insufficient.
The first 5 years of being a homeopath I just absorbed whatever
there was in the homeopathic world, all kinds of ideas, theories
and Materia Medica.
But after that I still could
not cure the majority of my patients. Every seminar gave me something
more, but not a complete set of ideas to cure everyone. And the
Law of Similars does not say that it will only work sometimes. The
way it is formulated means that one can cure everyone with the simillimum.
If that is true time will tell, but what was striking for me is
that every newly learned remedy helped me to cure one or two patients
more. So a logical step for me was to think that by learning more
remedies one can cure more patients, which is in accordance with
the Law of similars.
When I started learning homeopathy,
I followed the teaching of Kent and Kunzli, which focused on about
50 polychrests that should cure almost everyone, but that was not
my experience. On the contrary, I had the most beautiful results
with so called "small" remedies.
I
realized soon that in principle every substance is a remedy. This
is because every substance will give intoxication when taken in
the necessary quantity. And in the world there are thousands of
salts, whereas homeopathy was using only a few hundred. There are
about 250.000 species of plants. 1000 of them were known at the
most in homeopathy, the majority of those only in a small part.
So there was a huge gap.
What pushed me the most were
the "uncured" or "incurable" patients. When the normal remedies
do not work, maybe an "abnormal" one will do. I once stated this
in the form of a rule "In an unknown case, one has to prescribe
an unknown remedy." This is a direct consequence of the Law of similars.
MB:
When I first read your books Homeopathy
and Minerals and Homeopathy
and the Elements, the
fact that there are so many empty spaces in our periodic table was
like a realization of sorts. When and how did you become interested
in exploring the mineral kingdom to fill these empty spaces?
JS:
As stated above I soon realized
that every substance is a remedy. So the gaps of the periodic table
where also just remedies. The problem was how to get them known.
Proving was one possibility, but that takes a lot of time. And my
patients do not like to wait for 3 or 5 years.
What I did first was look at
the analogies, for instance, between Aurum, Platina, Plumbum and
Mercury as they are in the same row. The symptoms they have in common
will also be there in remedies like Iridium and Tungsten, also being
in the sixth row, the Gold series.
MB:
Why did you chose to fill the empty spaces synthetically rather
than by conducting systematic provings?
JS:
Provings take too much time. Hahnemann had developed 100 remedies
in his life by hard work. The periodic table has 100 elements and
combined with about 10 to 20 salts that will give 1000 to 2000 remedies,
enough for 10 lives to do the provings.
A second reason is that it does not give much understanding. Most
provings lead to a bunch of symptoms that seem to be totally unconnected.
Such Materia Medica is hard to read, and even more difficult to
remember. I have discovered that when one reads pages out of it
in a seminar, everyone gets bored within 2 minutes.
Remedies, though, have a cohesion. Symptoms are connected to themes
and in the end an essence. Learning those makes the remedies understandable
and easy to handle in actual cases. This aspect of remedies has
to be discovered gradually, which in the end can be done the best
by Group analysis such as the Periodic Table theory.
But what led me the most is a scientific attitude. A real scientist
believes that there is order, simplicity and beauty behind the multitude
of phenomena we see. Einstein has expressed that as something like:
science is making a simple theory that explains the most of
our experiences. So I tried to find a theory that explains
the most our Materia Medica, which is the theory of the Periodic
System for the Mineral Kingdom. I wanted to bring homeopathy to
a higher level of science.
MB:
By what process
did you determine the life conflict or theme of each element, series
and stage. Was it a distillation of available literature or a more
intuitive process?
JS:
It was mostly a combination of 3 things.
-
Materia Medica
-
Cases: my cured cases (and also cases of colleagues and seminars)
gave me an understanding of the remedy. It made clear what the
problem was, the essence was, why symptoms where there, what
their meaning was.
-
Analysis: Analysis transferred the basic building blocks of
remedies from just symptoms to themes. For instance when a remedy
is dictatorial it means they want to be a leader, the boss.
In our Materia Medica we mostly find the dictatorial aspect,
not the "boss". But it must be there too. The ultimate
"theme" of a remedy is its essence. The essence
makes it possible to deduce the whole remedy picture in a logical
way, at least in principle.
Of course there have also been intuitive moments. But they came
the most and the best by hard work on the issues as stated above.
MB: There has been a lot of debate
on the use of medicines that have not been proved yet. What is your
take on this issue?
JS:
There is a lot of misunderstanding about provings
and Materia Medica. It seems that many homeopaths think they are
identical. And many Materia Medicas are like that, for instance
the ones of Hahnemann.
But provings are just a means to discover the real remedy picture.
And that means is not perfect, far from it. This can be concluded
from several facts:
-
Two provings of
the same remedy will not be identical.
-
There are many
symptoms in provings that come from the provers and not from
the remedy.
-
Most provings produce
symptoms, but seldom an essence.
This leads to the situation where the remedy pictures have to
be discovered in a process, a process in which provings can be a
part. Another means is analyzing cured cases. A third means is Group
analysis as I have discussed in another article in this magazine.
Group
analysis is rejected by some homeopaths as a valid means, but I
think it is essential as a science. Classification is an essential
step in every science to develop further as I have discussed in
"Homeopathy
and Science" and "Homeopathy and Classifications",
both published in Homeopathic Links and Secret Lanthanides.
Even with purists the remedy pictures used in practice are not
proving pictures. For instance the remedy picture of Lycopodium
has many keynotes that cannot be found in the provings as I have
discussed in "Dogmatism in Homeopathy" (Homeopathic Links).
MB: You gave the essence, themes
and expected symptoms of many unknown, unproven remedies in your
works. How many of the remedies that were unproven at the time of
writing your books have now been formally proved?
JS:
I do not know. I am not so concerned with that
aspect. When I know a remedy, a proving is not so interesting anymore.
I know Jeremy Sherr proved Scandium and one of the conductors was
surprised that some striking symptoms in my book were reproduced
in the proving.
MB: Have you been able to confirm
your synthesis of some unproved remedies later through the proving
symptoms and are there any new provings which presented data very
different from your own ideas/remedy pictures?
JS:
As stated above I do not check that so much. My
check is cured cases. When a remedy works very well it can only
do that because it is the simillimum, or at least very near. So
the picture of the patient is the remedy picture. When you have
seen a remedy work a few times, you do not doubt anymore, especially
when one sees the huge amount of similar cases of other homeopaths
in journals like Homeopathic Links and Interhomeopathy.
It is even more convincing when one reads cases that have all
the aspects of the Periodic system theory but none of them have
been used in the analysis of the case.
MB:
Since your focus is very much on the cured case, I would like to
ask - How do you evaluate whether a remedy has acted curatively
or not for the long term? What are the criteria for determining
whether a remedy or a series of remedies is taking the patient in
a curative direction. At what point in time would you consider a
patient cured?
JS: First one has to consider that cure is not an absolute
thing but relative. Life is a process, a development. When one problem
is solved another will arise after some time, in order to go into
a further evolution.
The criteria are to help the person in his evolution. A basic
aspect of this is to help a person to become freer, freer from his
thoughts, limitations and burdens. Patients often express this in
the phrase, "The situation is the same, but I am not frustrated
by it anymore." So the mind healing is for me the most important.
This is in agreement with the idea that the origin of disease is
in the mind. So the mind has to be cured first and the body will
follow later. It is also one of the expressions of Hering's Law.
Together
with this healing one sees a patient becoming happier, more creative
and more energetic. There is more energy because less energy is
going toward the original problem.
The
complaints have to disappear after some time too.
Is a patient cured then? For the moment, till some new problem
arises, but in this process one sees a patient becoming lighter
and clearer.
MB:
My next question is in relation to your statement above that when
a remedy is dictatorial it means they want to be a leader, the boss.
In the repertory, medicines from the mineral kingdom that are listed
against the rubric 'dictatorial' are:
Mercurius solubilis hahnemann, Arsenicum album, Causticum Hahnemanii,
Cuprum metallicum, Ferrum metallicum, Gallicum acidum, Ozonum, Palladium
metallicum, Phosphorus, Platinum metallicum, Sulphur.
Fairly varied group, not even falling in
any single group or series. How do you make any sense of it? Are
all these medicines 'bossy' in your opinion? What would be the difference
in the 'dictatorialness' of these medicine based on the themes that
you have evolved?
JS: Here we see the problem with words. I think that remedies
like Causticum, Cuprum, Ferrum, Ozonum and Sulphur are not dictatorial
as such, but they can be headstrong in their pursuits. That is something
different. Really being dictatorial means that one wants to be a
leader.
Of course it all depends on how one uses the word dictatorial.
MB:
In the same rubric there are many remedies from other kingdoms:
From
Animal Kingdom
Androctonos amurreuxi, Apis mellifica,
Lachesis.
From
Plant Kingdom
Dulcamara, Lycopodium clavatum, Arnica
montana, Bambusa arundinacea, Chamomilla vulgaris, Chelidonium majus,
China officinalis, China rubra, Conium maculatum, Lilium tigrinum,
Nux vomica, Veratrum album.
Again a very varied group. What relationship does the 'dictatorial'
nature of the mineral remedies hold to these groups and what relationship
do these remedies from the other kingdoms hold within themselves?
JS: Here again one can discuss if these remedies really
belong there. In my experience the repertory is often incorrect.
A Dutch group has done research on some symptoms and found out that
about 50% of the entries in the Repertory are incorrect.
That
does not mean that Apis will never be dictatorial once, but that
it is not a typical thing of Apis.
MB: But if we assume that 50% of
entries in our repertories our invalid, it will shake the very foundations
on which we work. If we reject proving data and start looking for
synthetic coherence, wouldn't it make homeopathy less logical, less
scientific and less acceptable to the general scientific community?
JS: I think it will do the opposite. Working with incorrect
data is unscientific.
Assuming
that our repertories are correct would lead to a very scientific
dilemma: how can something correct lead to something incorrect,
as many repertorizations will lead to the incorrect remedy.
The
problem is how to know what is correct and incorrect. That can only
be done by looking at cured cases and analysis of the pictures.
Hahnemann
encountered the same problem. His solution was to say that every
symptom during a proving is from the remedy. He did not substantiate
this idea. I think it is wrong.
In the
provings that I have done I have seen a lot of symptoms coming from
the provers and the situation in which the proving was done. And
I think it cannot be avoided.
One
can minimize the "noise", for instance, by giving strong
toxic doses. Then most people will react more or less the same.
I see this procedure as unethical.
Another way is to select very sensitive and clean provers. How
to do that? And then it can still happen that the remedy is similar
to the blind spot of the provers.
MB: There has been a lot of controversy
and discussion regarding the method of conducting provings in the
last few years. There are people who insist that provings should
start with material dose and then higher potencies should be proved
in the more sensitive provers. On the other hand there are people
who recommend that all provings should be done in 30C. What in your
opinion is the right way of doing a proving? And how do you know
what is the symptom of a remedy and what is the 'noise'?
JS: There is no right way, there are many ways. This can
be seen from the fact that many different forms of provings lead
to (parts of ) the remedy picture. In secret Lanthanides I have
written a chapter about provings. The basic idea is that the remedy
can be seen as a sender, the prover as a receiver. The trick is
to get as pure and full a signal without noise. There are many ways
to improve it, not just one way. The article "Theory on Provings"
will be published in the October issue of Interhomeopathy: www.interhomeopathy.org
MB: Jan, one of the basic tenets
in homeopathy practice is that the physician should be as unprejudiced
as possible. If while taking a case, we find that the person is
a 'manager' or a 'leader' in an organization, we assume that his
remedy belongs to the Aurum series and we start looking for a remedy
in the Aurum series which fits the person best. Don't you think
this is a prejudiced way of finding a remedy instead of looking
at the totality at the onset and then trying to find the simillimum?
Also because in this approach the person more or less shuts his/her
eyes to remedies from other kingdoms.
JS: In this question many different problems are hidden:
-
It is incorrect to prescribe a remedy from the Gold series
just for the reason that someone is a leader. That should only
be done when leadership is connected to the problem. That would
be the same as prescribing a muriaticum because the patient
has a mother.
-
When one decided the problem is a "leader" problem, this does
not say anything about the kingdom yet. The theme of the Gold
series can be found in the plant and animal kingdom just as
much as in the mineral kingdom. And many animals and plants
contain those elements. When one knows the connection it is
even helpful. For instance when the Silver series is indicated
one can think of Rubiaceae (China, Ipecacuanha) or Loganiaceae
(Gelsemium, Nux vomica and Ignatia).
-
The third problem is that the question represents a superficial
way of thinking and analyzing. Case taking and analysis is a
working process. One has to go to the essence of the problem
in order to know what it is. Going to the essence is by no means
straightforward. The essence is always hidden, sometimes more,
sometimes less, so one has to discover that essence. Mostly
the patient wants to go away from it, because it is painful.
So the doctor has to guide the patient to it, by gently softening
the pain in the consultation. How much one needs to see of the
essence depends very much on how well one knows the problem
of the patient. When it is a well know remedy, one can recognize
it with some hints.
-
Case taking is something that has to be learned. What guides
me is the question "What is the problem here?", "Why should
this patient produce those symptoms?". In the past I was a symptom
gatherer as a homeopath. Now I have become a problem analyzer.
These are two very different things. One has to go into the
depth of the patient by asking further and further, till one
comes at the end where there is nothing further. But that is
often much further than one thinks, as I have seen in supervising
homeopaths.
-
One has to be very careful especially as a homeopath not to
project one's own thinking. Too easily we are tempted to think
we understand the patient, by seeing an analogue with things
that have happened to ourselves. But most of the time the experience
of the patient is different. So one has to keep on questioning
like "What do you mean?", "Can you tell more about it?", "What
happened to you then?", "What did you feel?", "What did you
do?" ,"Why did you do that?".
-
Very important is the fact that the patients infrequently
talk about the Stage. The Stage is what they do themselves.
Most often patients talk about what others do to them. It is
also an aspect of going away from the problem; talking about
others is easier. So the homeopath has to probe especially into
the question of the Stage. The Stage is the attitude, the doing,
it is expressed in verbs. Our Materia Medica and repertories
do not cover this aspect of remedies very well, to put it mildly.
Verbs are lacking.
MB: This clarifies the approach a
lot. But the young students still often relate the occupation (manager)
with the 'series'. Do you think that the methods being developed
by you, Dr. Sankaran, Mangialavori etc. should be taught to the
students right from the beginning or should these methods, which
are at times more subjective or need better analytical skills, be
taught to post-graduate students or practicing homeopaths?
JS: Yes, they should be taught right from the beginning.
Not doing so is like teaching chemistry without telling about atoms
and the periodic table. It makes things much more difficult. The
new ideas bring order in the chaos of the Materia Medica.
According
to my experience it is not the students that have problems with
the new ideas. Most often they welcome them and feel it is enlightening
their task of mastering the knowledge of homeopathy. It is the teachers
who have problems with the new ideas most of the time. The ideas
are often not taught at the schools due to lack of experienced teachers.
So the students pick up the knowledge here and there, without proper
guidance.
The problem of simplification, like matching "manager" with Gold
series, is a problem of beginners, not of a system. Beginners simplify
the knowledge always, later on they will refine. Teaching the old
way has the same problem of simplification, like all blonde, yielding
women need Pulsatilla, or all people with "suppressed emotions"
need Staphysagria.
MB:
How should the students go about mastering your approach/work?
JS: It all comes down to one's own experience. So it is
from theory to cases and vice versa. When you have a good case,
see what fits in the theory and try to understand the case from
the point of the theory. When you have a case try to analyze it
with different theories.
An understanding of the Stages is important. It means that one
has to go deeper than just the words and concepts. When one understands
the Stages as such, the concepts are just handy grips.
MB: To
a question above, you said that the theme of the Aurum series can
also be found in the plant and animal kingdom. These days I have
read similar thoughts at other places too that one can find the
simillimum in any kingdom. Do you think that there can be more than
one simillimum?
JS: What I meant was that the themes of the Gold series,
and all other series, can be found in the plant and animal kingdoms,
but they will express themselves there differently. I don't want
to say that the simillimum can be found in any kingdom. That was
an idea or hypothesis of Kent, but I think it is incorrect.
MB: You have said above that a lot
depends upon case-taking and case-analysis. What significance do
you attach to potency selection and case-management in leading a
patient to cure? Is finding the simillimum enough?
JS: The choice of the potency is of minor importance, compared
to the selection of the simillimum.
I have
the impression that sensitive people need higher potencies.
But at the other hand I think that a good remedy will work in
any potency. The information will be transferred from the level
it has been given to the other levels of existence.
MB:
At this juncture, I would like to ask a question, that I have earlier
asked Dr. Sankaran too.
Do you know that the arrangement of elements
in the 'rows and columns' is not absolute? There are many problem
areas with the Mendelev's periodic table and scientists have proposed
many new layouts like long, spherical, cyclical and helix arrangements.
Check this site for complete details -
http://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/35_pt/pt.html
My
question is when the rows and columns are themselves arbitrary,
how can you fix stages of human development, emotions and problems
to them?
JS: The rows and columns are not that arbitrary. They are quite
fixed. After Kalium comes Calcium, then Scandium and then Titanium.
Shifting them around would violate basic chemistry knowledge.
One
can make several layouts that each highlight another aspect of the
periodic table. One of the reasons is that it is too complex to
fit into a flat plane, so one can see several layouts that are 3-dimensional,
like the Alexander format (see Secret Lanthanides).
Most of the problems arise when combining the several rows as
they have different amounts of members. Hydrogen series, row 1,
has 2 members; one could even say 1 or one and a half members as
Helium is in between the Hydrogen series and Carbon series, row
2. Carbon and Silicium series have 8 members. Ferrum and Silver
series have 18 and Gold series has 32 members. That does not fit
together nicely in one table, so for the series there is no doubt
for each element to which series it belongs.
To do
right to the columns of the periodic table one could make descriptions
for each length: 2 Stages, 8 Stages, 18 Stages and 32 Stages. That
is what I tried when I was writing Homeopathy and the Elements:
I had one series of 8 Stages (for Carbon and Silicium series) and
one of 18 Stages (for the other series) in the beginning, but that
started feeling awkward after some time. There was huge overlapping
in meaning. I considered it confusing to number 2 series of Stages,
one of 8 and one of 18: questions would arise in discussions like
"which Stage 7 do you mean, that of the Carbon series or the
Ferrum series?", so I made the decision to describe only one
series of 18 Stages. This left only a little bit of confusion, about
the position of Boron and Aluminum in Stage 3 till 9, and Nitrogen
and Phosphorus in Stage 11 till 15.
In reality
it is a bit more complicated, but that is inherent in the periodic
table.
To show
some aspects of the complicated situation one could look at the
Hydrogen series, row 1. It has Hydrogen and Helium as members, so
there are 2 stages: stage 1 and 2.
Helium
then is in Stage 2, which compares with Stage 18 of the "normal"
18 Stages. One could also say it is in Stage 0 , as it is before
the beginning (Stage 1) of the next row. Also the fact that the
Stage of Helium represents "nothing" fits better with
the number 0 than with 2 or 18.
Hydrogen is in Stage 1, but compared with the 18 Stages it has
aspects of Stage 1 till 17. Especially there is an obvious connection
with Stage 17 and the halogens. This is reflected in the "syphilis"
quality of Hydrogen and the acids, which is a Stage 17 aspect.
MB: Are there any other problem areas
in the use of periodic table as a tool for finding the simillimum?
JS: Not especially. Of course, one first has to find the
problem of the patient, before one can apply the periodic table
theory.
MB: You have been developing this
approach since the last 15+ years. Do you think the work regarding
the mineral kingdom and the periodic table is complete now? What
is your focus of attention now?
JS: Basically the theory is sound. Of course details and
refinements are added all the time.
Now I am more focused on the Plant Kingdom.
MB: I
believe that you are now studying various plants for their mineral
content and their respective qualities. What have you been able
to find so far?
JS: The studies are in its infancy. They should be repeated
on a much wider group of plants. They should be repeated on different
stages of development and different parts of the plants.
What I have found so far are isolated points of information, but
very interesting ones. For instance Belladonna and Hyoscyamus twice
showed high contents of Lithium. The picture of Lithium has many
similarities with those of Belladonna and Hyoscyamus.
MB: Jan, in the last few years the
attacks on homeopathy in Europe have increased many folds. Issues
have come up in UK, France and many other countries. What future
do you see for homeopathy in the coming few years?
JS: The attacks are a sign that homeopathy has become strong
in its effects. The attacks started after the publications of Meta
analyses that showed the efficacy of homeopathy beyond doubt. One
can see that as the stages of Kubler-Ross in confrontation with
a loss. The first stage is denial, which has been the attitude of
normal medicine for years. They thought homeopathy was not worth
talking about, that it would pass off by itself. Now normal medicine
is in the second stage, that of anger. They are angry because of
their loss of their monopoly.
How it will go on I do not know. Now they are using more and more
politics to limit homeopathy. They use all kinds of tricks to put
homeopathy in a bad light. In the Netherlands all this gave a diminution
of people coming to homeopaths for a while, but at the moment the
flow is increasing again. So people can be fooled for a short time,
but not always.
MB:
There is one thing that I find a bit surprising. India has the largest
number of homeopaths but in comparison to Europe, your work is still
not so well-known here, except
for some pockets like Mumbai.
The remedies are also very difficult to
source. You have also not given
too many seminars here. Do you foresee yourself doing something
to change the scenario?
JS: If I give seminars in India depends on invitations.
The remedies are very well available at Remedia: www.remedia.at.
Also Helios has a lot of remedies: www.helios.co.uk
MB: I hope we will get to hear you
in India soon. Jan, thank you so much for sharing your life and
thoughts with us today. It has been a pleasure to hold this discussion
and I hope the interaction will continue in future too to support
our common goal of promoting homeopathy. Thank you!
|