An interview with Frederik Schroyens, MD Interviewed by carolyn hallett, jd AH: How do you decide which proving sy pto s to incorporate into

the repertory! FS: "ne o# the ain $uestions about the evolution o# the repertory has always been: %who decides%! &ent has been hailed as a super'authority, by so e, to the e(tent that i# a re edy wasn)t in a rubric, &ent ust have had his reasons #or that* +his type o# authority is outdated in this age where every individual wants to take #ull responsibility #or his li#e and #or his actions* ,ith the increasing discrepancy between strict classical ho eopaths and ore e(peri ental ho eopaths, this issue has been a ajor concern #or e as an editor o# a -epertory, which has set as its pri ary goal to o##er the highest $uality ho eopathic in#or ation* +here is increasing disagree ent about the de#inition o# $uality! In order to resolve this issue in a thorough way I have conceived a new idea #or Synthesis, so ething called %the .on#idence -ate*% /very re edy in the repertory will be labeled with a con#idence rate, indicating the $uality o# the in#or ation* +his con#idence rate will depend upon several criteria, such as %re edy e(isted in &ent)s repertory%, %classical proving%, %supported by three di##erent ho eopaths%, etc* ,ith the help o# nu erous ho eopaths worldwide, I have ade a list o# all the reasons why one has ore or less con#idence in a re edy in the -epertory* +hese criteria have been translated into athe atical rules* Several criteria ay apply to one re edy so a #inal value is calculated* Subse$uently, di##erent ho eopaths will want to use di##erent $uality criteria in a di##erent way* +his will be possible as, #or e(a ple, I can give a value o# %0% to drea provings, while others ay want to give a value o# %1% to this in#or ation 2the higher value indicates the better $uality3* All this in#or ation will be %behind the screen% and anyone can start using Synthesis with the de#ault values* However, i# anyone wishes to de#ine the $uantity and $uality o# the in#or ation they are working with, it will be possible* +hey can use another preset con#iguration or create their own way to consider $uality* Synthesis will co e with ten steps o# increasing $uality o# in#or ation, ranging #ro 0 to 40* ,hen the ini u level o# $uality as 5ero, all in#or ation will be displayed, even the very new or doubt#ul in#or ation* ,hen the ini u level is 40, only in#or ation is shown which is absolutely reliable* It will take only a ouse click to step down or up a level and to e(pand or narrow down the nu ber o# re edies shown in Synthesis* As a result, the decision to use a certain author or a certain type o# in#or ation is not taken by the /ditor, but by every single user* 6ecause o# this possibility we #elt co #ortable to add uch ore in#or ation to this co ing version o# Synthesis as co pared to previous versions, in #act several hundreds o# thousands additions are added* +he $uestion %which provings do you add% has to be looked at in the light o# this new possibility* In principle, we can add all provings, all in#or ation* ,e will label it when doing so, de#ining its $uality according to several criteria* It is no longer the editor or an editorial board who decides what is to be added and what not* In #act, we have the possibility now to add in#or ation without co pro ising on the $uality, because whatever we add you will always be able to look at Synthesis displaying only the highest $uality, con#ir ed in#or ation* It is the Synthesis user who decides which proving, which in#or ation he wants to use*

ith the con#idence rate we have achieved that goal* AH: Are proving the es reliable or use#ul #ro the standpoint o# the repertories! FS: +he es which run through a proving are very interesting and should be given ore e phasis as it will help to see what in#or ation is recurrent and there#ore probably ore relevant* In Synthesis.hen we get a new proving. it will take longer* AH: So e ho eopaths #eel that we should be spending our energies on re'proving e(isting edicines rather than new substances* How do you #eel about this issue! FS: +his is not a atter o# choice* Di##erent people will do di##erent things according to their belie#s* 6oth old re edies are being reproved and new re edies are co ing up* 7o one has to ake a decision o# principle about this as there will always be ho eopaths supporting either vision* AH: How do you #eel about the $uality o# the provings being conducted today.e have created a progra . ore than ever. we will ore easily integrate the new in#or ation i# the repertory transcription is well prepared* I# it is poor or non'e(istent. link the to sy pto s and easily e(port all o# that in#or ation to share it with your students. and how could today)s provings be i proved. give the job only to so eone who knows the repertory very well. and use the tools which are available* AH: . and editative provings! FS: . even a#ter the re edy that works* I# I take a re edy it .hat sy pto s should be added to the repertories! Many ho eopaths. se inar provings.+here is no philosophy being used about what has to enter and what not* +he additions happen on a very prag atic basis* . it would be naive to believe that everything which happens ne(t is due to the re edy. creating a per#ect tool which can be used in di##erent ways* +he ain challenge is to build it in such a way that the way one ho eopath wishes to use it does not inter#ere with the way another ho eopath wants to use it* /ven i# the additions o# the one are useless or insane #or the other* . #riends. the transcription o# provings into repertory language is poor* It see s as i# any proving groups do not look into the repertory when suggesting sy pto s or at least see know the repertory very poorly and create a lot o# redundant new sy pto s* "ur tea is contacting the proving groups to ake sure that the integration is done correctly. especially with regard to in#or ation that is incorporated into the repertories! FS: "verall. who ever* AH: .reating a repertory has beco e.hat I would like to e phasi5e is that y personal opinion does not atter* . have co plained about the great nu ber o# sy pto s added #or 6a boo* How can this be controlled! FS: I# I give a re edy to a patient. %8roveIt9% which helps anyone to collate proving sy pto s in a very syste atic and $uick way and especially to link the to repertory sy pto s* So e groups are using this progra and this is an i prove ent as it obliges the to be ore precise* It would be great i# the proving groups would get in touch with the repertory akers sooner in their transcription process.hat is your opinion about drea provings. #or e(a ple. but it is a big job* . we have so ething called %concepts% which are groups o# sy pto s e(pressing the sa e idea* 8roving the es are concepts #or us* +hey are #ully integrated in the repertory structure and will help anyone to #ind sy pto s and related sy pto s ore easily* :ou can create your own concepts 2e*g* proving the es3 within the repertory.

6elgiu * . it can never be con#ir ed a second ti e* For erly. but the work is being done* Frederik Schroyens is the editor and developer o# the Synthesis -epertory* Dr* Schroyens also oversees the Synthesis 8roject which coordinates the collaborative e##orts o# thousands o# ho eopathic practitioners worldwide* Dr* Schroyens has worked closely with ?eorge . so it)s very precise* All this is already possible since version < o# Synthesis 24==>3* +he ongoing task is to label all in#or ation correctly and this process will probably only co e to a satis#actory co pletion is Synthesis version =. i# a sy pto is not entered a #irst ti e. or even ore sy pto s* +he general guideline ay be that we suggest to add only those sy pto s which are probable and indicative o# the re edy* +he reality is again that di##erent people will #ill this in a di##erent way.on#idence -ate% we get the possibility to put these sy pto s at a low con#idence rate and to upgrade the con#idence i# they are con#ir ed. no atter how any rules and co ittees will be #or ed* . they all e(press the e(perience o# 6ernd Schuster* So eone else ay have indicated less. %8roveIt9% which helps anyone to collate proving sy pto s in a very syste atic and $uick way and especially to link the to repertory sy pto s***It would be great i# the proving groups would get in touch with the repertory akers sooner in their transcription process. and to upgrade the even ore i# they are con#ir ed by very di##erent authors* . and use the tools which are available* +he ore than 4.ithoulkas to incorporate his additions and ideas into the Synthesis -epertory* Dr* Schroyens currently resides and practices in ? certainly naive to believe that every drea o# the #ollowing night belongs to the picture o# the re edy* It is only a certain repetition o# in#or ation which will be indicative o# the true sy pto s* However. give the job only to so eone who knows the repertory very well. it can still be distinguished as the re#erences re#er to one publication o# an author.e have created a progra .000 sy pto s o# 6a boo* are just the beginning o# a dyna ic process which will puri#y the in#or ation* In Synthesis one re edy can be re#erenced with several authors. #or e(a ple only the author re#erences which are #ro provings.ith %.iew% which allows you to look at a restricted nu ber o# authors.ith the possibilities o# the %con#idence rating% the repertory itsel# can be that database and even show these sy pto s on de and until #urther con#ir ation* It is true that very any sy pto s were added #or 6a boo. so the whole ho eopathic co unity can get involved in the creation o# the per#ect i age o# 6a boo* +his is uch ore i portant than being #rightened by a great nu ber o# sy pto s o# a new re edy in this initial stage* AH: Should clinical and proved sy pto s be distinguished in the repertories! FS: As clinical cases and provings are di##erent types o# in#or ation. it is ore precise i# they can be di##erentiated* +his can be done in Synthesis by the so called %-epertory . starting with Hahne ann* I# a sa e author has provings as well as clinical in#or ation. several people advocated that so e database so ewhere should contain the sy pto s to be con#ir ed* "nly when they were con#ir ed they could be taken to the -epertory* .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful