A group
analysis evaluation Anhang 2
[Massimo Mangialivori]
Amphetamin-Ähnliche: Coffea, Thea, Cacao, Kola, Guarana, Yohimbin
Group Analysis Research at Durban University of Technology (DUT)
In addition to the work on group analysis as mentioned Masters students
at DUT have also employed the group analysis method as follows:
Wulfsohn (2005) analyzed the Graminae (grass) plant family of
homoeopathic remedies and found Sankaran’s method of group analysis could be
successfully
applied to unexplored plant families. Wulfsohn (2005: 79-81) also stated
that it is important to use remedies that are well proven and documented and to
be aware that
“most small remedies are unlikely to have adequate mental and emotional
symptoms to determine a central theme/essence as done by Sankaran”.
As can be seen by the difficulties encountered by some of these
researchers when using poorly represented or poorly proven remedies, for the
group analysis approach to be
successful there needs to be adequate homoeopathic literature available.
Computer Software and Group Analysis Group
Analysis is becoming increasingly popular due to developments in
computer software which now make this method quicker and easier to use. This
research study employed
Encyclopaedia Homeopathica and RadarOpus, both from Archibel.
Encyclopaedia Homeopathica is a search engine with access to an
extensive database of materia medicas, therapeutics, journals, philosophies,
cured cases and seminar transcripts.
This database includes classical texts that are currently out of print
as well as the most contemporary writers.
RadarOpus (Archibel, 2015) is a software program that acts as an
interface between homoeopaths and their tools –repertories, materia medicas and
patient files.
Together these software programs enabled the researcher to quickly
access vast amounts of homoeopathic literature and extract rubrics specifically
for the purpose of group analysis.
2.4
Criticisms of Group Analysis
Levy, Ajjawi and Roberts (2010: 1322) argue that despite more than 200
years of continuous practice, little is known about the actual decision-making
processes of homoeopaths and that significant tensions exist between advocates
of different styles of homoeopathic practice.
The hostility between advocates of group analysis and their critics is
one such example of this tension. The world-renowned classical homoeopath,
George Vithoulkas (2008), refers to group analysis as one of the new “spurious
theories” and says “with all these irrational and arbitrary new ideas the
modern teachers are defaming homoeopathy and demolishing the corner stones that
constitute its scientific edifice”. In an article against such methods he
wrote, “This is essentially the old idea of signatures’ abandoned as useless
hundreds of years ago, now presented as an enlightened modern solution for
easily finding the indicated remedy”.
Other critics of group analysis have also associated it with the
doctrine of signatures, a theory that the appearance of a substance suggests
its healing properties. Mangialavori (2010: 4) acknowledges that “had
homoeopathic medicine adhered to this doctrine, it would have been ridiculed
and never gained credence in scientific circles” and he argues that his work is
not about simply applying the doctrine of signatures which is “often limited to
superficial analogy”; rather, it is about discovering a “deep analogy between
systems”. To emphasise this point, Mangialavori (2010: 25) wrote: “Superficial
isomorphism is not very helpful in studying the principle of similitude,
whereas deeper structural analogies and system processes are essential.” Saine
(2001), although no advocate of group analysis, argues in support of a possible
deeper structural analogy existing between remedies and their sources. He
writes: At the time of Hahnemann the ‘doctrine of signatures’ meant simply
and only that the shape of a substance could be used to determine the organ the
plant was likely to help (for example a bean-shaped leaf applies to kidney
ailments). This rudimentary doctrine was criticised by Hahnemann. But nowhere
does Hahnemann criticise the idea that the source of the remedy has a bearing
on the symptoms it produces. Why are nine of our snake remedies listed for fear
or dreams of snakes? Why do numerous plant remedies have their aggravations at
the exact hour when the species opens its flower (Pulsatilla at sunset, etc.).
Why are so many of our remedies made from creeping plants found to have dreams
or desire to travel? Is this coincidence or is it possible that the life
struggles and habits of the remedy source do influence the feelings of the
provers? We cannot explain how this might take place but why should this
concept be so implausible? ...And if the physiology of the remedy source can
give us clues, why would we ignore the possibility of using these hints? Would
any responsible homoeopath use only this type of data in formulating a remedy
decision?
Decidedly not (Saine, 2001: online).
Another critic of group analysis is Chandran (2012). He finds group analysis
“totally unscientific and illogical” and claims it “illustrates the pathetic
level of scientific awareness that rules the propagators of the ‘Sankaran
method’”. He argues that this method “has nothing in common with classical
homoeopathy, where symptoms belonging to mentals, physical generals and
particulars, with their qualifications such as causations, sensations,
locations, modalities and concomitants decide the selection of simillimum” and
that “Sankaran’s method will result in gravely disabled incapacitated
homoeopathic practice, preventing homoeopaths from utilizing the unlimited
potentials of our materia medica.”
The researcher feels that Chandran’s (2012) unequivocal statements fail
to take into account that Sankaran’s method does rely on the use of
repertories, materia medica and the faithful recording of symptoms and their
qualifications. Sankaran (2006: 20) says “any real progress in homoeopathy is
impossible without a very firm footing in homoeopathic philosophy, the materia
medica and the repertory” and as this study will show, the themes of a
homoeopathic family or group are founded solely on information provided in
repertories, materia medica and provings. The first step in Sankaran’s method
is to extract from repertories all rubrics pertaining to the selected remedies
and use these as a base for data analysis. Group analysis is not based on the
‘old idea of signatures’ but rather on themes that have been developed through
a thorough analysis of both materia medica and repertories. Scholten, Sankaran and
Mangialavori have not developed their theories through simply looking at the
source of remedies, but rather through countless hours of studying homoeopathic
literature and analysing cured cases.
Furthermore, Chandran (2012) implies that Sankaran limits specific
emotions or symptoms to specific kingdoms. He uses fear as an example, saying:
“according to Sankaran,
fear indicates the ‘vital sensation’ of ‘survival instincts’, which
needs ‘animal remedies’” and asks: “I want to know, from where Sankaran got the
idea that only ‘animal remedies’ have ‘fear’ and ‘survival instincts’?”
Chandran (2012) repertorises the symptom FEAR and finds remedies listed
from the plant, animal and mineral kingdoms. Hence he argues that Sankaran’s method
is not sound. It is important to note here, that Sankaran (Cooper, 2006)
defines his method as a “system approach, rather than a symptom approach” and
does not allocate specific symptoms (such as fear) to one kingdom only. In
group analysis, any remedy can experience fear. It is how they experience and
express this fear that is important.
For example, ‘animal remedies’ may express it through aggressive,
competitive behavior; ‘mineral remedies’ may express it through becoming
excessively organised, fastidious and structured in their day-to-day life; and
‘plant remedies’ may express it by being unusually sensitive and reactive to
situations.
The researcher feels that it is more the use and application of group
analysis that is open to criticism rather than the methodology itself and she
agrees with Traub (cited in Lewis, 2007) who wrote the following: “It always
saddens me when people take a brilliant concept and reduce it to ridiculous
proportions in an attempt to simplify homoeopathy. I have seen a homoeopath
give Apis because the patient wore black and yellow stripes to the interview. (succesfull?)
I hardly think that this is what Sankaran intended”. In the words of
Saine (2001), “If some misuse the work, should we throw out the concept? Do
some people carry these ideas too far? Yes, but let's us not throw out the baby
with the bathwater”.
Even the ‘masters’ of group analysis caution homoeopaths in its use and
application, stressing that it should not replace a systematic, logical
repertorisation of symptoms
or be used too subjectively.
Scholten (1993: 23) acknowledges that group analysis is not the most
successful method for local, physical complaints and is best applied to the
level of the mind.
Chauhan (2007), another well-recognized expounder of Sankaran’s method,
explains how important it is for a homoeopath to treat the case as it is
directly in front of them.
In other words, if a patient has gangrene of the leg then the homoeopath
needs to treat the gangrene first before looking for the patient’s simillimum.
Having completed their Master’s dissertations in group analysis,
Wulfsohn (2005: 80), Vogel (2007: 128), Weston (2010: 152) and Chhiba (2013:
168) all caution homoeopaths in how they apply group analysis, saying that if
it is applied carelessly or incorrectly it can lead to false, inaccurate
interpretations and unreliable, misleading results. Experienced homoeopaths who
have a profound knowledge of homoeopathic philosophy and materia medica
combined with many years of clinical practice and case-taking,
in which they have developed their own intuition, employ group analysis
with great success. However, students and novice homoeopaths who are not yet
proficient in homoeopathic philosophy, materia medica and case-taking need to
apply it with caution.
According to Levy, Ajjawi and Roberts (2010:1323) “students and novices
tend to store knowledge in a more disorganised and disjointed pattern and to
retrieve it in a trial-and-error fashion.
They lack sufficient knowledge of homoeopathic materia medica (comprising
over 3000 medicines) to make accurate pattern recognition decisions, and are
heavily reliant on deductive reasoning”. As Vithoulkas, in an interview with
Bhatia (2010) says, “bypassing hard work of studying remedies properly in order
to find easy ways for prescribing, will finally prove disappointing to both the
Homoeopath and patient”.
Advocates of group analysis argue that one of its strengths is that it
enables homoeopaths to use remedies that have not yet been proven but that may
be an individual’s simillimum.
However, this apparent ‘strength’ is also often seen as its ‘weakness’.
Vithoulkas (Bhatia, 2010) argues that if one learns properly the remedies
already available, the homoeopath will have no need for new unproved remedies
and that “to teach that those new unproven remedies are the basis of modern
homoeopathy to the novices, is a disaster”. In direct contrast to Vithoulkas’s
reliance on provings is Mangialavori’s (2010) belief that it is cured cases and
not provings that are of the utmost importance. Sankaran (Cooper, 2006) argues
that the science of homoeopathy is constantly evolving and that homoeopaths
need to evolve with it: “Hahnemann, in his own lifetime, changed the Organon six
times, introducing new concepts, new ideas, and depths of understanding each
time.
So to remain stuck to what Hahnemann said, as the last and final word,
is in a way going against his very spirit. One has to go by what one observes
and what one sees,
and, following on the method of Hahnemann, using the logic, using
observation, testing it out, testing the concepts, being self-critical, being
circumspect, one has to advance
in order that we get better and more consistent results.”
The researcher believes that the most suitable conclusion to the debate
on group analysis is embodied in Saine’s (2001) bold words: “Let ideas and
clinical results speak for themselves”.
She feels that more research needs to be conducted on group analysis,
more cured cases applying this method need to be published and, most
importantly, these need to
be viewed and tested with open minds.
Vorwort/Suchen Zeichen/Abkürzungen Impressum