Behind the Glass Screen

'In a proving we hear the voice of nature through the words or the expressions of a prover. And due to the law of similars the remedy has to match the patients expression, complaints and disease (...the only conceivable Gestalt of the disease 6 Organon). In addition to what we understood through the homeopathic provings, Anne Vervarcke has added in the book the new understanding of Ozone through the connection to the chemical elements, to the place in the periodical table (03) and the clinical and physical properties of the element Ozone, the good and bad Ozone and its action/reaction. And due to that she has brought out a larger frame of the theme of the Ozone pattern.

The perfect reported cases together with the gestures and postures of the patient explain how to understand the deepest part of the patients vital disturbance. In the analysis of each case it becomes very clear that we can learn that at a certain time of the interview the source speaks itself and this is of great importance. All those details complete the Gestalt of Ozone.

This book will mark the beginning of a significant step forward in understanding a new remedy and will help many practitioners to prescribe Ozone as a similimum for the sake of the patients.

Anne Schadde, Germany'


excerpt from Behind the Glass Screen; a Homeopathic Survey of Ozone

... And for analysing a case we really dont need to make any interpretation whatsoever. The only thing a homeopath needs to do is to observe and under-stand what he is observing. When he is able to translate this observation, put a Word to it, his work is done. This Word is the diagnosis and the cure. I could compare it to looking at a picture: one sees a house and a tree and a cloud. It is not: the cloud is good and the tree is bad, it is what it is. This is what Hahnemann meant by the unprejudiced observer. When we observed the picture in all detail we could say in one word what we see. We dont need to explain why the house is there and how the cloud got there. Probably the tree is the way it is because of its father and mother but we dont need this to see it the way he is. With information on the emotional level we tend to make cases instead of receiving cases. Making up a case is one of our most common mistakes: we inter-pret what the patient said, we make up a reason why he behaves like he behaves, we invent a possible cause for his deeds and feelings and we try to make him fit into something we understand. Most likely it will have more to do with the homeopath than with the patient. In fact we dont have to understand the patient at all, not in the emotional realm. We have to keep ourselves open during the whole intake to be sur-prised by the patient and to capture exactly that thing we never heard anybody else say before. This is much more likely on the mental level. With the help of the systematic analysis it makes it much easier for the homeopath now to determine which kingdom we are dealing with. With the idea of a coherent pattern in our mind we are able in almost every case to spot the right remedy. With mineral remedies, as far as I understand, the vital sensation is shared by all: it is emptiness. So even when we can take the patient to this level and he gets in touch with this deep experience, we need the expressions on the other levels to determine what remedy he needs. The other possibility is when the patient makes connection with the substance itself and reveals to us all the characteristics of it. It rarely happens with an element of the periodic Table but when it does, the prescription is absolutely waterproof. I feel though this connection must be established without any effort and without too much probing from the homeopath. Otherwise the risk is too big that the patient will start using his imagination and then we are on too slippery ground again. Imagina-tion produces pictures and these are not a basis for prescription because the patient can have an infinite number of them. Only when they all make up a coherent and meaningful pattern are they indicators for the vital disturbance.
The general conclusion I want to make is that when a prescription is good, no matter what method or level used: the same remedy will always come up. If one prefers to use Repertory rubrics, applies the insights from the systematic analysis, bases himself on proving symptoms or even keynotes, in a solid and certain prescription the same remedy is bound to come up. Either route to the remedy is good but the more certainty we can get to prescribe the similimum the more our patients will benefit from it and the more rewarding will be our efforts...