(AV= Anne Vervarcke AvdM= An van de Moortel)
AvdM: Let’s talk about the conditions to be fulfilled on the side of the remedy. It doesn’t seem too difficult to define these since the remedy must be the perfect match, the similimum and given in the right potency at the right time.
AV: Precisely. Some homeopaths will argue that the one remedy for the patient is a delusion and doesn’t exist. I can live with the description of ‘the best suitable remedy that is similar to the vital sensation.’ If all these conditions are fulfilled, the basic requirements for healing are there. The entanglement between these three, homeopath, patient and remedy, will create or optimize the conditions to be cured. This also means that if one is missing, we don’t have a homeopathic cure.
AvdM: Isn’t it logical that without a remedy, there is no cure?
AV: Some people, among whom are homeopaths, believe the remedy is only a ritual and the healing lies in the con-tact, the consultation. Some believe the intention to give a healing remedy is enough and you don’t actually have to give or to take in a remedy. Others believe a lot of remedies will do as long as the homeopath believes in his remedies. We have all joined in, in endless philosophical speculations about these topics. But one of the reasons I use, and advise students to use, placebos is to find out what a placebo does in a particular patient and what is the difference with a remedy. If you don’t try it, you will never know. Outsiders will argue that homeopathy is based on the placebo effect, exactly because they don’t know the difference from expe-rience in the same patients, that we have.
AvdM: But the other possibility: ‘no homeopath, no cure’ is equally evident!
AV: A lot of people who are not homeopaths take ho-meopathic remedies. Pharmacies sell them to everybody, advising people to take for instance Ignatia MK three times a day when they have an emotional problem. A lot of people self-medicate, which in itself even when it is a homeopath, is to be considered useless. You can’t treat yourself because it is impossible to be neutral about yourself. And although I believe whatever remedy taken by whomever can have an effect, it would be very coincidental if it would have a curative effect.
AvdM: Otherwise it would be ridiculous to study so hard for so long if every ignorant person could do the same, you are right. What about ‘no patient, no cure’: isn’t that obvious?
AV: What would you call a patient? We are all patients in a sense but only when we take on that role. This implies that we go to a homeopath with the request to be helped. The homeopath takes on a role as well. He is a normal person after all, but in this particular setting he agrees to do all he can to heal the patient. But if somebody doesn’t want any help or doesn’t want to ask anybody or doesn’t choose the homeopath to be healed, then regardless of the opinion of the ones around him, he is not a patient and shouldn’t be given homeopathic remedies. When homeopaths or non-homeopaths give a remedy to somebody who didn’t ask for it or doesn’t even know it was put in his food or drink, mostly it doesn’t even work.
AvdM: Wait a minute! That is strange: shouldn’t the remedy work under all circumstances?
AV: Even if the remedy works in somebody who is unaware he took a remedy in his drink, how will you know? Maybe a partner put a remedy in her husband’s drink, but what happens afterwards? Even if patients, who follow our treat-ment with regular follow-ups and dosages, doubt that the remedy did something because they didn’t feel anything. They admit they are much better but they attribute it to all kinds of things except homeopathy. How will somebody ever know whether the remedy given to somebody who didn’t ask to get rid of a particular problem improved the problem or not? When will you repeat? How often? What dosage will you give? If the non-patient is not totally trans-formed with the one dose within two months, he most likely will be given another remedy or nothing at all. But ‘no cure’ is the result of such a procedure.