An interview with Frederik Schroyens, MD - 2000

-  Interviewed by carolyn hallett, jd

Frederik Schroyens

AH: How do you decide which proving symptoms to incorporate into the repertory?
 FS: One of the main questions about the evolution of the repertory has always been: "who decides"? Kent has been hailed as a super-authority, by some, to the extent that if a remedy wasn't in a rubric, Kent must have had his reasons for that. This type of authority is outdated in this age where every individual wants to take full responsibility for his life and for his actions.
 With the increasing discrepancy between strict classical homeopaths and more experimental homeopaths, this issue has been a major concern for me as an editor of a Repertory, which has set as its primary goal to offer the highest quality homeopathic information. There is increasing disagreement about the definition of quality?
 In order to resolve this issue in a thorough way I have conceived a new idea for Synthesis, something called "the Confidence Rate." Every remedy in the repertory will be labeled with a confidence rate, indicating the quality of the information. This confidence rate will depend upon several criteria, such as "remedy existed in Kent's repertory", "classical proving", "supported by three different homeopaths", etc. With the help of numerous homeopaths worldwide, I have made a list of all the reasons why one has more or less confidence in a remedy in the Repertory.
 These criteria have been translated into mathematical rules. Several criteria may apply to one remedy so a final value is calculated. Subsequently, different homeopaths will want to use different quality criteria in a different way. This will be possible as, for example, I can give a value of "0" to dream provings, while others may want to give a value of "2" to this information (the higher value indicates the better quality).
 All this information will be "behind the screen" and anyone can start using Synthesis with the default values. However, if anyone wishes to define the quantity and quality of the information they are working with, it will be possible. They can use another preset configuration or create their own way to consider quality.
 Synthesis will come with ten steps of increasing quality of information, ranging from 0 to 10. When the minimum level of quality as zero, all information will be displayed, even the very new or doubtful information. When the minimum level is 10, only information is shown which is absolutely reliable. It will take only a mouse click to step down or up a level and to expand or narrow down the number of remedies shown in Synthesis.
 As a result, the decision to use a certain author or a certain type of information is not taken by the Editor, but by every single user.
 Because of this possibility we felt comfortable to add much more information to this coming version of Synthesis as compared to previous versions, in fact several hundreds of thousands additions are added.
 The question "which provings do you add" has to be looked at in the light of this new possibility. In principle, we can add all provings, all information. We will label it when doing so, defining its quality 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 fact, we have the possibility now to add information without compromising on the quality, because whatever we add you will always be able to look at Synthesis displaying only the highest quality, confirmed information. It is the Synthesis user who decides which proving, which information he wants to use.
 There is no philosophy being used about what has to enter and what not. The additions happen on a very pragmatic basis. When we get a new proving, we will more easily integrate the new information if the repertory transcription is well prepared. If it is poor or non-existent, it will take longer.
 AH: Some homeopaths feel that we should be spending our energies on re-proving existing medicines rather than new substances. How do you feel about this issue?
 FS: This is not a matter of choice. Different people will do different things according to their beliefs. Both old remedies are being reproved and new remedies are coming up. No one has to make a decision of principle about this as there will always be homeopaths supporting either vision.
 AH: How do you feel about the quality of the provings being conducted today, and how could today's provings be improved, especially with regard to information that is incorporated into the repertories?
 FS: Overall, the transcription of provings into repertory language is poor. It seems as if many proving groups do not look into the repertory when suggesting symptoms or at least seem know the repertory very poorly and create a lot of redundant new symptoms.
 Our team is contacting the proving groups to make sure that the integration is done correctly, but it is a big job. We have created a program, "ProveIt!" which helps anyone to collate proving symptoms in a very systematic and quick way and especially to link them to repertory symptoms. Some groups are using this program and this is an improvement as it obliges them to be more precise. It would be great if the proving groups would get in touch with the repertory makers sooner in their transcription process, give the job only to someone who knows the repertory very well, and use the tools which are available.
 AH: What is your opinion about dream provings, seminar provings, and meditative provings?
 FS: What I would like to emphasize is that my personal opinion does not matter. Creating a repertory has become, more than ever, creating a perfect tool which can be used in different ways. The main challenge is to build it in such a way that the way one homeopath wishes to use it does not interfere with the way another homeopath wants to use it. Even if the additions of the one are useless or insane for the other. With the confidence rate we have achieved that goal.
 AH: Are proving themes reliable or useful from the standpoint of the repertories?
 FS: Themes which run through a proving are very interesting and should be given more emphasis as it will help to see what information is recurrent and therefore probably more relevant. In Synthesis, we have something called "concepts" which are groups of symptoms expressing the same idea. Proving themes are concepts for us. They are fully integrated in the repertory structure and will help anyone to find symptoms and related symptoms more easily. You can create your own concepts (e.g.  proving themes) within the repertory, link them to symptoms and easily export all of that information to share it with your students, friends, whomever.
 AH: What symptoms should be added to the repertories? Many homeopaths, for example, have complained about the great number of symptoms added for Bamboo. How can this be controlled?
 FS: If I give a remedy to a patient, it would be naive to believe that everything which happens next is due to the remedy, even after the remedy that works. If I take a remedy it is certainly naive to believe that every dream of the following night belongs to the picture of the remedy. It is only a certain repetition of information which will be indicative of the true symptoms.
 However, if a symptom is not entered a first time, it can never be confirmed a second time. Formerly, several people advocated that some database somewhere should contain the symptoms to be confirmed. Only when they were confirmed they could be taken to the Repertory. With the possibilities of the "confidence rating" the repertory itself can be that database and even show these symptoms on demand until further confirmation.
 It is true that very many symptoms were added for Bamboo, they all express the experience of Bernd Schuster. Someone else may have indicated less, or even more symptoms. The general guideline may be that we suggest to add only those symptoms which are probable and indicative of the remedy. The reality is again that different people will fill this in a different way, no matter how many rules and committees will be formed.
 With "Confidence Rate" we get the possibility to put these symptoms at a low confidence rate and to upgrade the confidence if they are confirmed, and to upgrade them even more if they are confirmed by very different authors.
 We have created a program, "ProveIt!" which helps anyone to collate proving symptoms in a very systematic and quick way and especially to link them to repertory symptoms...It would be great if the proving groups would get in touch with the repertory makers sooner in their transcription process, give the job only to someone who knows the repertory very well, and use the tools which are available.
 The more than 1,000 symptoms of Bamboo. are just the beginning of a dynamic process which will purify the information. In Synthesis one remedy can be referenced with several authors, so the whole homeopathic community can get involved in the creation of the perfect image of Bamboo. This is much more important than being frightened by a great number of symptoms of a new remedy in this initial stage.
 AH: Should clinical and proved symptoms be distinguished in the repertories?
 FS: As clinical cases and provings are different types of information, it is more precise if they can be differentiated. This can be done in Synthesis by the so called "Repertory View" which allows you to look at a restricted number of authors, for example only the author references which are from provings, starting with Hahnemann. If a same author has provings as well as clinical information, it can still be distinguished as the references refer to one publication of an author, so it's very precise. All this is already possible since version 5 of Synthesis (1994).
 The ongoing task is to label all information correctly and this process will probably only come to a satisfactory completion is Synthesis version 9, but the work is being done.
 Frederik Schroyens is the editor and developer of the Synthesis Repertory. Dr. Schroyens also oversees the Synthesis Project which coordinates the collaborative efforts of thousands of homeopathic practitioners worldwide. Dr. Schroyens has worked closely with George Vithoulkas to incorporate his additions and ideas into the Synthesis Repertory. Dr. Schroyens currently resides and practices in Gent, Belgium.