This will give you some understanding. Basically, the way I view this issue is that there are two major processes involved in the homoeopathic prescription, where one has to be careful. One, the case analysis; two, the remedy understanding. What has happened lately is that under the pretext of refreshing thoughts, some new case analysis methods have been introduced which are far from being scientific. For instance, the case analysis based on the theme of dreams and delusions. I stress that, it is important to consider the repeatedly seen dreams of the patients, in the prescribing totality. But, it is ridiculous to make speculative interpretations of the dreams and delusions, and base the prescription on such a fantasy. This is unscientific.
When it comes to interpretation, it tends to become quite subjective and personal. For instance, every prescriber can offer a different analysis to every dream theme, therefore leading eventually to a wide range of remedy suggestions. This could certainly be harmful.
Secondly, the remedy understanding. Hahnemann, Boenninghausen, Kent and other masters understood
remedies more or less in black and white. But somehow, the new trends of incorporating the study of the materia medica with mythology, symbolism, dream-proving, story-telling and so on, have introduced a lot of unproven data, which I am afraid, will take homoeopathy far from universal acceptance.
|