I recently went to one day of a five-day seminar by Jan Scholten. Perhaps I picked a bad day, but I found all the cases he presented unconvincing- even though, I presume, they were intended to demonstrate the superiority of his method of prescribing.
Not one case shown on video, or even cited by this trendleading Dutch homoeopath, struck me as of such a serious character that a jellybean or two would not have done as well as his prescription.Cases of pilonidal cyst/sinus were quoted, but seemed to be no more speedily fixed than under a traditional, dare I say rational, prescription of Calcarea phosphoricum or Calcarea silicata. Anyway, perhaps as many as 19 out of 20 cases of this condition would get better in time if the mountain biking or similar activity that caused or perpetuated the condition was stopped.
This sort of presentation, trumpeting the amelioration of minor conditions of malfunction, is in great contrast to the obvious achievements of the good prescribers of yesteryear who are supplying examples of their skill for this journal.
I do not think it stick-in-the-mud to study the successes of these people, who make scant reference to mental symptoms or constitutional typology in their prescribing; we can all learn from them and realise what little need there is for a new homceopathy.
Bruce Barwell