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e, to the e(tent that i# a re edy wasn)t in a rubric, &ent ust have had his reasons #or that* +his type o# authority is outdated in this age where every individual wants to take #ull responsibility #or his li#e and #or his actions* ,ith the increasing discrepancy between strict classical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*

+here is no philosophy being used about what has to enter and what not* +he additions happen on a very prag atic basis* ,hen we get a new proving, 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, 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, and how could today)s provings be i proved, especially with regard to in#or ation that is incorporated into the repertories! FS: "verall, 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, but it is a big job* ,e have created a progra , %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, give the job only to so eone who knows the repertory very well, and use the tools which are available* AH: ,hat is your opinion about drea provings, se inar provings, and editative provings! FS: ,hat I would like to e phasi5e is that y personal opinion does not atter* .reating a repertory has beco e, ore than ever, 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* ,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, 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, link the to sy pto s and easily e(port all o# that in#or ation to share it with your students, #riends, who ever* AH: ,hat sy pto s should be added to the repertories! Many ho eopaths, #or e(a ple, 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, it would be naive to believe that everything which happens ne(t is due to the re edy, even a#ter the re edy that works* I# I take a re edy it

is 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, i# a sy pto is not entered a #irst ti e, it can never be con#ir ed a second ti e* For erly, 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* ,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, they all e(press the e(perience o# 6ernd Schuster* So eone else ay have indicated less, 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, no atter how any rules and co ittees will be #or ed* ,ith %.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, and to upgrade the even ore i# they are con#ir ed by very di##erent authors* ,e have created a progra , %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, give the job only to so eone who knows the repertory very well, and use the tools which are available* +he ore than 4,000 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, 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 ;iew% which allows you to look at a restricted nu ber o# authors, #or e(a ple only the author re#erences which are #ro provings, starting with Hahne ann* I# a sa e author has provings as well as clinical in#or ation, it can still be distinguished as the re#erences re#er to one publication o# an author, 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 =, 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 ;ithoulkas to incorporate his additions and ideas into the Synthesis -epertory* Dr* Schroyens currently resides and practices in ?ent, 6elgiu *