Interview with Dr Jan Scholten

Dr Jan Scholten in an Interview

Dr Pawan S. Chandak: Please tell us something about your life from childhood to the present.

Dr Jan Scholten: There is nothing remarkable to report about my youth. I grew up in a small town in the south of the Netherlands. I went to school like other children. My family has a leaning toward medicine; my father was a veterinarian, two of my brothers are veterinarians, and my third brother is a general practitioner.

The important things happened more inside me. I always thought a lot about life and asked myself what really drives people. I was always searching for the essence of life.
Perhaps that is why an aptitude test suggested that biochemistry would be the right subject for me, and so I began to study it. The examiners had identified my interest in science and life and thought these two interests were covered by biochemistry.

However, it later became clear that biochemistry was too "dead" for me; it lacked life, the life essence. So I turned to a completely opposite field of study and studied philosophy. But after a few years I discovered that the professors were more interested in nice theories than in really dealing with the question of life's essence. So I gave up that course.

Then I studied medicine. The theory was great, but I did not like the practice. Often I felt patients would be better off if they were not in hospital. At least I would not have liked what was done to patients to be done to me. This was especially true in cancer clinics. I asked several oncologists whether they would like to be treated like that and they said no. Perhaps I was too critical; but this was long before I encountered homeopathy.

After graduating I decided to become a general practitioner because, for the reasons mentioned, I did not want to work in a hospital. During that time I took several courses in alternative medicine: acupuncture, orthomolecular medicine and later homeopathy. I chose homeopathy last because I thought it was a rather remote field. But when I engaged with homeopathy I discovered that it was real medicine. Patients who feel young again and recover their original selves — that is healing!

From then on I worked only as a homeopath. In homeopathy everything came together; it felt like coming home. In homeopathy you find what moves people: how the body works, how it reacts to stress and how it expresses problems. Homeopathy is in a sense a conglomerate of medicine, psychology, mythology, physics, philosophy and sociology and encompasses, to some extent, all the sciences.

Dr Pawan S. Chandak: Can you name any particular reason for your interest in homeopathy and your conversion to it?

Dr Jan Scholten: I was convinced by the fact that homeopathy can really cure, that patients felt as young as they had been before their illness. If the stories I had read were true, then this was what I really wanted to do. I wanted to heal people, to make them truly healthy.

Dr Pawan S. Chandak: Whom do you refer to in your homeopathic work? I mean: who is your guru or teacher, who inspired you and introduced you to homeopathy?

Dr Jan Scholten: There is no specific guru. Life is my guru; it teaches me the essential things. The patients are gurus because they show the homeopath whether he has recognised the correct remedy picture and given the right remedy. My colleagues are gurus in that they report interesting cases and stimulate me with their ideas and thoughts.

Dr Pawan S. Chandak: What do you think about current trends in homeopathy regarding different approaches and hypotheses, and about the concept of classical homeopathy with regard to single doses and single remedies?

Dr Jan Scholten: The concept of "Classical Homeopathy" is only very vaguely defined. Some homeopaths understand it as a mode of homeopathic treatment in the same way as Hahnemann or Kent. In that sense I am not a classical homeopath.
For some homeopaths "Classical Homeopathy" is synonymous with prescribing single remedies. In that sense I am classical. Yet the idea of single remedies does not rest on very firm ground with regard to the laws of homeopathy.
It may turn out in the future that "single remedies" are not the very "core" of homeopathy.

Dr Pawan S. Chandak: Please briefly tell me about the state of homeopathy in the Netherlands, taking into account your personal experiences and the problems you have encountered in your homeopathic practice.

Dr Jan Scholten: Homeopathy shows several developments. As a social phenomenon it is on the one hand exposed to many attacks by the media, such as magazines and television. This is not typical of Holland; it occurs everywhere in the world. This trend culminated in an article in The Lancet, a meta-analysis of homeopathy.

The conclusion of the article was that homeopathy is a placebo. But this conclusion was based on a limited selection of research reports. The selection itself was not described in detail, and it was not made clear on what basis it had been made. The whole thing was therefore very unscientific.

What is odd is that such a "renowned" journal makes such obvious mistakes. And it is also extremely strange that this stands in contrast to other journals which in their current news publish four earlier meta-analyses that clearly show that the effects of homeopathic remedies are by no means merely down to placebo. These results were inadequately represented in the media. It seems there are forces in our society actively working against homeopathy.

Some homeopaths look for the causes of these attacks within the homeopathic community. For example, Vithoulkas blames new developments in homeopathy, like those by Sankaran and myself, for homeopathy coming under attack. Such things often happen when minorities are attacked: they split into various subgroups and always accuse the others in order to gain support from the public. This has happened in many religious groups in the past. It just doesn't work. Outsiders can attack a divided group even more easily and successfully.
These media attacks have partly influenced people negatively, so fewer people go to the homeopath. As a result some homeopaths in the Netherlands had to give up their practices. On the other hand, homeopathy as a science is undergoing an enormous development. Treatment results — even in serious illnesses — are becoming ever better. Understanding of the homeopathic remedies has deepened and many new remedies have been added.

Dr Pawan S. Chandak: How do you assess the need to re-evaluate homeopathic remedies that were proved in Hahnemann's time?
Is it really necessary, and if so, can this change our Materia Medica through new discoveries and new insights?

Dr Jan Scholten: One can carry out many remedy provings if one wishes. Everyone has the freedom to choose a remedy and prove it, whether it is an old or a new remedy. It is always advantageous when such provings are published.
Every new proving of a "well-known" remedy will differ from the old remedy picture. Provings are not the remedy itself; they show one aspect of a remedy, and the perspectives are different. The essence of a remedy is always the same, but what emerges from a proving depends on many factors.

© Uschi Dreiucker/
PIXELIO

© Uschi Dreiucker/
PIXELIO

Dr Pawan S. Chandak: Do you consider a revision of the 6th edition of the Organon necessary?

Dr Jan Scholten: One can view an upgrade of the 6th edition of the Organon from various perspectives. But my basic position is to leave the Organon as it is. It is a historical text and as such is fine as it stands. New homeopathic textbooks are, however, always needed because homeopathy is in constant development. A comparison with physics makes this clear: Newton's writings are not improved upon. But his basic ideas are reformulated in modern textbooks, perhaps in even better ways; additions and supplements are added. The Newtonian writings themselves are hardly read by physics students because today there are much better textbooks written in modern language and therefore easier to understand.

Dr Pawan S. Chandak: What is your view on the importance of disease diagnosis in homeopathy? Is it a must?

Dr Jan Scholten: A proper diagnosis belongs to homeopathic diagnostics. "Disease" is part of the remedy picture and as such relevant and important. But one can also prescribe on the basis of the essence of a remedy or a life feeling or one's intuition or whatever and thus bypass the diagnosis. The essential thing is to recognise the right remedy, however that may be achieved.

Dr Pawan S. Chandak: What do you think about the use of preventive medication in various epidemics (1) such as chikungunya, viral infections or conjunctivitis? Do you agree with Hahnemann's genius epidemicus concept? And if not — why? Dr Praful Vijaykar, for example, disagrees with Hahnemann's epidemic concept.

Dr Jan Scholten: I am of the opinion that Hahnemann did excellent work here. In the prevention and therapy of epidemics homeopathy has had great successes all over the world from the start. Epidemics are one of the areas where the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies can easily be demonstrated.

Dr Pawan S. Chandak: What do you think about the topic of "classification of miasms" as propagated by some homeopaths, e.g. cancer-miasm, malaria-miasm, AIDS-miasm, etc.?
Do we need further miasm classifications beyond Hahnemann's miasmatic classification of psora, sycosis and syphilis?

Dr Jan Scholten: The "miasm model" is applied in many different ways. Some homeopaths use exclusively the three remedy groups as Hahnemann gave them.
Masi uses the same miasms as stages in the development of disease. According to Masi, remedies are not psoric, for example, but they can be appropriate for a patient in a psoric stage of disease.
Sankaran uses the miasm concept as a way to recognise the problems associated with the different forms of a disease. Sankaran's miasm model is closely connected with the stages of the periodic table; the miasms express these stages. Hahnemann develops his idea of miasms in the "Chronic Diseases"; the miasm behind the outwardly visible suffering means something like contamination; you do not see it, but it brings forth the disease. Thus the term miasm expresses the notion that "diseases" are not the diseases themselves; there is something else behind all these pathologies which is the true seat of disease. Connected with this is the idea that "miasms" can be inherited as invisible influences from generation to generation.
Therefore it is difficult to talk about miasms without first clarifying exactly what is meant by them.

Dr Pawan S. Chandak: You have given seminars and lectures in various countries. What impression do you have of the status of homeopathy in England and in the USA?

Dr Jan Scholten: It is just as I have already said. The situation does not differ greatly from that in Holland. I believe it is different in India, but I do not know the situation there well enough to say much about it.

Dr Pawan S. Chandak: What advice do you give to the younger generation of homeopaths? There are various schools with different opinions worldwide, like Sankaran, Predictive Homeopathy (Vijayakar), Vithoulkas, Sehgal etc.

The same applies to homeopathy: a remedy is a remedy. You can view that remedy from different perspectives, but the remedy remains the same. One could also put it this way: "The remedy does not care how it is found." Or more scientifically: "The remedy works regardless of the method by which it was found."

Yet there is a split in homeopathy between a conservative group and those who take new paths. The conservatives call themselves "classical" and claim to be Hahnemann's true heirs. They tend not to recognise new developments as genuine homeopathy; they dismiss them as "new schools", or "only for the very advanced, certainly nothing for beginners". Unfortunately most teachers in homeopathy schools are rather with the conservatives and teach students only the "old" homeopathy. The discussion between the two groups is not very fruitful and often leads to accusations and slander.

An example may clarify this. I had a discussion with Vithoulkas about the development of remedy pictures. Vithoulkas insisted that they can only be derived from provings and perhaps, maybe a little bit, from clinical cases. He called the idea of deriving remedy pictures from miasmatic classification un-homeopathic, not Hahnemann-oriented, idiotic and merely due to the developer's desire for recognition.
None of these four arguments is scientifically relevant. It is very regrettable that the discussion cannot be raised to a scientific level.
Vithoulkas similarly ridicules the idea that remedies from the various kingdoms each have particular qualities. But here too there is no scientific argument; he simply tries to make it ridiculous. It is a pity that he dismisses these ideas without experience of them. Experience shows that they are right. It is a shame that Vithoulkas cannot acknowledge these new insights, and it is even more regrettable for his patients. But worst of all for the homeopathic community is that it leads to division and confusion.

The classicals argue that one does not adhere exactly to Hahnemann. But that is not a scientific argument. It is more of a religious argument like those who lean on the Bible or the Koran as ultimate texts. Scientifically speaking it is irrelevant who said what; what matters is whether what was said is true.

Dr Pawan S. Chandak: Tell us more about your research into the "law of similars".

Dr Jan Scholten: Every prescription is a test of the law of similars. But up to now I trust the law of similars. That means that if a remedy does not work I doubt my prescription and not the similia rule. It is a clear statement that I trust the principle of similarity. It is universally valid and always true. That means it is applicable to all therapies, including conventional medicine.

Dr Pawan S. Chandak: Tell us more about your studies of the periodic table and the mineral kingdom. How did your interest in researching the connections between the mineral kingdom and homeopathy arise?

Dr Jan Scholten: My question would rather be: "Why would I not have worked with the periodic table?" The periodic table of the elements is the fundamental plan of nature's structure and therefore relevant for homeopathy. Homeopathy is not something outside nature. On the contrary, homeopathy is deeply rooted in nature and its life essence. Thus the periodic table must have a profound significance for the remedies of nature. Nature is a unity; theories are different.
 
Dr Pawan S. Chandak: Why did you decide to fill the gaps synthetically rather than conducting systematic provings? Please tell us about this in detail.

Dr Jan Scholten: There are several reasons. The first is that it is very time- and energy-consuming to carry out provings in the classical way, as Sherr does, for example. If I had proceeded that way my book Homoeopathy and the Elements would still not be finished today.
  
The second reason is that it is more scientific, or rather it is science at a higher level, at the level of classification. It promotes the scientific nature of homeopathy because it can make predictions about remedy pictures. Predictions are important for science.

The third reason is that the theory of the elements gives the essences of remedies; in this way one is not distracted by side issues or misinformation as often happens with provings.

Dr Pawan S. Chandak: How did you determine the life conflict or the theme of the different elements, series and stages? Is it a distillation from the available literature or rather an intuitive process?

Then clinical cases are added, filling out the picture and giving it depth and life. Classification brings all this together and refines the essence. In this way it facilitates comparison and differential diagnosis. The whole is completed by logic, because the sequence of the stages follows the logic of the life process. 

Dr Pawan S. Chandak: There are many new remedies today that have not yet been proved. How do you see the problem? This topic is much debated…

Dr Jan Scholten: There are many ways to arrive at a remedy picture. Provings are one possible route. Unfortunately Hahnemann limited homeopathy to this one possibility, and he was wrong, as I have shown in "Dogmatism in Homeopathy". Remedy pictures can also be derived from cured clinical cases, as the similia rule demonstrates. And they can be derived from classifications, which are a fundamental aspect of all sciences, as I have presented in Homoeopathy and the Elements.

Dr Pawan S. Chandak: Since you place the emphasis on cured cases, I would like to ask — how do you assess in the long term whether a remedy works or not?
Which criteria determine whether a remedy or a series of remedies lead the patient toward recovery? When do you consider a patient cured? Tell us your opinion and let us into your working method!

Dr Jan Scholten: The evaluation of cases is an essential element of all homeopathy; healing proceeds according to Hering's law of cure.
This expresses a general law according to which every living system attempts to free itself from disease or problems as far as possible. One of the simplest ways of healing is projection, and this is often chosen by people and even by whole societies. The most important factor for me is the healing of the mind and soul. If a patient can approach problems more lightly and is no longer so affected by them, one can be sure that he is on the right path and healing is progressing. The patient has freed himself from his problem; he has become generally freer.
But talking about "cure" is, in my view, wrong anyway. People are not simply sick or healthy; there is no separation into sick and healthy, even if from a physical point of view, superficially, it may appear so.
All people are somewhere on a scale between very ill and very healthy. So people can never be completely "cured"; they are on the way to better health.

Dr Pawan S. Chandak: In recent years there have been many disagreements and discussions about the correct conduct of provings. Some insist that provings should start with a low (material) potency and only then should higher potencies be tested by particularly sensitive provers. Others recommend that all provings be carried out with 30C.
Which approach do you consider correct? And how do you distinguish a remedy symptom from "noise"?

Dr Jan Scholten: I discussed the topic of "provings" in "Theory of Provings".
 
 Dr Pawan S. Chandak: What do you think of the concept of the 'Impartial Observer'? How do you apply this concept in your practice, how do you instruct your students?
 
Dr Jan Scholten: The 'Impartial Observer' is an ideal that does not exist, but one must try to achieve it. All the character traits of the homeopath work against the attempt to be an 'Impartial Observer'. They are brought into the process. As a homeopath one is confronted with one's own character traits in therapy. They appear as obstacles to healing when we try to help our patients. Thus the homeopath can develop and become healthier and less biased by looking at his problems in therapy. That is one of the rewards of homeopathic work.

Dr Pawan S. Chandak: How should students proceed in order to learn your style of homeopathic work? What advice do you give the young homeopathic generation?

Dr Jan Scholten: It is a path of trial and error like any craft and any art. Practice makes perfect. An essential part of homeopathy is the desire and effort to understand the patient's problems.
If you know why a patient created his pathology, you have found the essence of the case. And the essence is the part of the remedy that is to be found in every case. You can rely on that. The attempt to understand the patient leads to the root of the problem and to the core of the patient. That is where the pathology originates. Thus this path leads to an understanding of the case.

Dr Pawan S. Chandak: I hope we will be able to welcome you soon in India. Jan, thank you very much for coming and for sharing your time and thoughts with us today. It was a pleasure for me to conduct this discussion, and I hope we can continue our cooperation for the benefit of our common goal, the promotion of homeopathy. Thank you!

Dr Jan Scholten: I hope to be able to come to India soon!

(1) In paragraphs 100–102 of his Organon of the Healing Art Hahnemann describes the procedure in epidemics. He recommends looking at which remedies have proved successful in an epidemic and then prescribing in individual cases according to one of these proven indications.

To the original article