Category Archives: Admin Comment

Herings law….. A lamentable falsehood.

Hering’s Law: Law, Rule or Dogma?
by Dr. André Saine, D.C., N.D., F.C.A.H.

Presented at the Second Annual Session of the Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians in Seattle, Washington, April 16-17, 1988.

heringIntroduction
In homeopathy today, Hering’s law is widely recognized as the second law of cure, the first law of cure being similia similibus curantur, or like cures like. Hering’s law pertains to the direction in which the symptoms of the patient will disappear during a cure under homeopathic treatment.

In his second lecture on homeopathic philosophy given in 1900 to the Post-Graduate School of Homœopathics, Kent said:

  • “The cure must proceed from centre to circumference. From centre to circumference is from above downward, from within outwards, from more important to less important organs, from the head to the hands and feet.”
  • “Every homœopathic practitioner who understands the art of healing, knows that the symptoms which go off in these directions remain away permanently. Moreover, he knows that symptoms which disappear in the reverse order of their coming are removed permanently. It is thus he knows that the patient did not merely get well in spite of the treatment, but that he was cured by the action of the remedy. If a homœopathic physician goes to the bedside of a patient and, upon observing the onset of the symptoms and the course of the disease, sees that the symptoms do not follow this order after his remedy, he knows that he has had but little to do with the course of things.” (1)

Here Kent does not differentiate between acute and chronic disease in the application of the law. It is reasonable to assume, because of the lack of precision, that he meant all diseases, acute and chronic of venereal and non-venereal origin, would disappear in the direction described above.

When first studying homeopathy, I listened to the teachers and read the “classic” modern works, and assumed, like my fellow colleagues, that Hering’s law had been an irrefutable fact recognized by Hering and the many succeeding generations of homeopaths, and that all patients, (All italics used throughout this paper indicate my own emphasis of pertinent points.) acute and chronic, without an exception, would, at all times, be cured in the afore-mentioned direction under careful homeopathic treatment.

Later as a practitioner, I carefully applied myself to put the general homeopathic training I had received to the test. Since then, I have been able to substantiate most but not all of the rules, principles and laws contained in the homeopathic doctrine promulgated by several generations of homeopaths.

So far, however, I have been unable to substantiate Hering’s law. Indeed, very rarely do I see, for instance, in a patient with chronic polyarthritis, the symptoms disappearing from the head first and then to the hands and feet. More often, the pain and other joint symptoms disappear in the reverse order of their appearance, even if it is from below upwards. In other words, if the arthritis manifested itself, as it happens at times, first in the knees and then in the ankles, the ankles would get better before the knees.

Or in a patient affected by a complex of essentially functional complaints such as fatigue, anxiety, irritability, difficult digestion, joint pain and acne, rarely would I see the disappearance of the emotional disturbance first, then the poor digestion followed by the joint pain and lastly the acne. With the simillimum most symptoms begin to improve simultaneously and disappear in the reverse order of their appearance, and not necessarily from above downwards and from inside outwards. In fact it is not uncommon that in such cases the acne, the last to have appeared, would disappear readily and the emotional state (the oldest symptom) would be the last to completely disappear.

While treating a patient with an acute febrile disease that had progressed in the first stage from chills to fever, then to perspiration and lastly to weakness, I would observe a rapid and gentle recovery but without the patient re-experiencing the perspiration, then the fever and lastly the chills. While recovering from acute diseases under homeopathic treatment, the patient does not re-experience the original symptoms one by one in the reverse order of their appearance. Many more troublesome exceptions similar to the above could be cited.

What was wrong with Hering’s law as quoted above from Kent’s Lectures on Homeopathic Philosophy? Had I misunderstood the law?
According to Webster’s dictionary, a law is defined as a sequence of events that occurs with unvarying uniformity whereas a rule permits exceptions, and a dogma rests on opinion. Was this lack of confirmation of the said law due to “suppressive” homeopathic treatment as suggested by a number of theoretical and perhaps dogmatic homeopaths? If so, why have these so called “purists” not stood up and proven that all their cured cases followed the said law? To my knowledge this proof has not been forthcoming.

Was I the only practitioner in this position?
I questioned teachers and colleagues, some with many years of experience. Few could answer my questions and none has been able to substantiate from their own experience without the shadow of a doubt that Hering’s law was a true law of nature. It seems that most were in the same situation as me, even the supposed authorities would discuss the matter but in private with the author. It seems that we all had classic cases of cure from above downwards, from within outwards, from more to less important organs and in the reverse order of appearance of symptoms. But these absolutely “perfect” cases were only occasional. The majority of cured cases did not fulfill all the four citedcriteria.

So I decided to go back to the sources.
On one hand, neither Kent, in his Lectures on Homœopathic Philosophy of 1900, nor Stuart Close, in The Genius of Homœopathy of 1924, nor Herbert Roberts, in The Principles and Art of Cure by Homœopathy of 1936 while discussing the above law, refer to it as Hering’s law. (1-3) None of these three authors makes any reference to Hering in their lectures on the law of direction of cure. On the other hand, Garth Boericke, in A Compendium of the Principles of Homœopathy of 1929, refers to it as Hering’s rule but not as a law. (4) Confusing, isn’t it? Did Hering ever formulate a law on the direction of cure? If he did, why was his name not clearly associated with the law and was it as a law or a rule? Why was the literature so ambiguous?

At this point, I realized that the sources had to be explored further. The answers would all have to be within the literature of the nineteenth century. After a thorough examination of this literature I have so far been unable to find any of Hering’s famous contemporaries and close colleagues discussing or making any reference to a law of direction of cure. Writings of Boenninghausen, Jahr, Joslin, P.P. Wells, Lippe, H.N.Guernsey, Dunham, E.A. Farrington, H.C. Allen, Nash, etc, were all silent.

When Hering died in 1880, colleagues all over the world assembled to pay tribute to the great homeopath. His many accomplishments were recalled. Strangely, none made any mention of a law of direction of cure promulgated by Hering. (5) Arthur Eastman, a student who was close to Hering during the last three years of the venerable homeopath, published in 1917 Life and Reminiscences of Dr. Constantine Hering also without mentioning a law pertaining to direction of cure. (6) Calvin Knerr, Hering’s son-in-law, published in 1940, 60 years after Hering’s death, the Life of Hering, a compilation of biographical notes. (7) Again no mention is made of the famous law. Not only confusing, but also puzzling.

Obviously, the sources had to be further explored. Here are the fruits of this exploration.

THE HISTORY RELATED TO THE FORMULATION OF HERING’S LAW

  1. Hahnemann – 1811
    With the first publication of his Materia Medica Pura in 1811, Hahnemann inaugurated a new arrangement of the symptoms: from above downwards, from inside outwards, but also from the parts to the generals.
  2. Hahnemann – 1828
    In 1828, Hahnemann published his first observations and theories on chronic diseases. (8) I summarize here the points most pertinent to the present discussion:

    • “All diseases, acute and chronic of non-venereal origin, come from the original malady, called psora. (page 7)
    • “A skin eruption is the first manifestation of psora. (page 38)
    • “The skin eruption acts as a substitute for the internal psora (page 11) and prevents the breaking out of the internal disease. (page 13)
    • “The more the skin eruption spreads the more it keeps the internal manifestations of psora latent. (page 40)
    • “But when the skin eruption is suppressed with an external application or other influences the latent psora goes unnoticed and its internal manifestation increases. Then “it originates a legion of chronic diseases.” (page 12) Incidently, for Hahnemann, a suppressed skin eruption is not driven into the body as it was popularly thought in his time, and even today by most homeopaths, but rather the vital force is compelled “to effect a transference of a worse form of morbid action to other and more important parts.” (Introduction of the Organon of Medicine page 62) (9)
    • “Latent psora, an abnormal susceptibility to disease, will manifest itself as severe diseases after exposure to stress (or as he calls it, unfavorable conditions of life) acute infections, trauma and injuries, exhaustion from overworking, lack of fresh air or exercise, frustration, grief, poor nutrition, etc, and by “incorrect and weakening allopathic treatment”. (page 48)
    • “During the treatment of chronic diseases of non-venereal origin with antipsoric remedies, the last symptoms are always the first to disappear, “but the oldest ailments and those which have been most constant and unchanged, among which are the local ailments, are the last to give way.” (page 135)
    • If old symptoms return during an antipsoric treatment, it means that the remedy is affecting psora at its roots and will do much for its thorough cure (page 135). If a skin eruption appears during the treatment while all other symptoms have so far improved the end of the treatment is close.”
  3. Hahnemann – 1833-43
    In paragraphs 161 and 248 of the fifth and sixth edition of the Organon of Medicine of 1833 and 1843 respectively, Hahnemann says that in the treatment of old and very old chronic disease, aggravation of the original disease does not appear if the remedy is accurately chosen and given in the appropriate small doses, which are only gradually increased. “When this is done, these exacerbations of the original symptoms of the chronic disease can appear only at the end of the treatment, when the cure is complete or nearly complete.” The original symptoms of a chronic disease should be the last to aggravate or become more prominent before disappearing. (10)
    In paragraph 253 of the same work, the author states that in all diseases, especially in quickly arising (acute) ones, of all the signs that indicate a small beginning of improvement (or aggravation) that is not visible to everybody, the psychic condition of the patient and his general demeanor are the most certain and revealing.

    In paragraph 225, Hahnemann states that some psychic diseases are not the extension of physical disease but, “instead, with only slight physical illness, they arise and proceed from the psyche, from persistent grief, resentment, anger, humiliation and repeated exposure to fear and fright. In time such psychic diseases often greatly harm the physical health.” In other words, Hahnemann had recognized the existence of psychosomatic diseases, those diseases which progress from within outwards and from above downwards.

    This is the background that now leads us to Hering, who, among all Hahnemann’s students, was most similar to him. Like Hahnemann, Hering was a true scientist who totally adopted the inductive method in his scientific pursuits.

  4. Hering – 1845
    In 1845, Hering published in the preface of the first American edition of Hahnemann’s Chronic Diseases an extract of an essay which was never published elsewhere, called “Guide to the Progressive Development of Homœopathy”.
    In this essay, Hering writes:

    • “Every homœopathic physician must have observed that the improvement in pain takes place from above downward; and in diseases, from within outward. This is the reason why chronic diseases, if they are thoroughly cured, always terminate in some cutaneous eruption, which differs according to the different constitutions of the patients.
    • “The thorough cure of a widely ramified chronic disease in the organism is indicated by the most important organs being first relieved; the affection passes off in the order in which the organs had been affected, the more important being relieved first, the less important next, and the skin last. (page 7)
    • “Even the superficial observer will not fail in recognising this law of order.
    • “This law of order which we have pointed out above, accounts for numerous cutaneous eruptions consequent upon homœopathic treatment, even where they never had been seen before; it accounts for the obstinacy with which many kinds of herpes and ulcers remain upon the skin, whereas others are dissipated like snow. Those which remain, do remain because the internal disease is yet existing… It lastly accounts for one cutaneous affection being substituted for another.” (11) (page 8)

    Here Hering assumes that all chronic diseases (it is likely that he is referring here to diseases of psoric origin, i.e., non-venereal) progress from less to more important organs and disappear in the reverse order. This is compatible with Hahnemann’s theory that all chronic diseases of non-venereal origin manifest themselves first on the skin then internally. (Concerning the theories of Hahnemann, Hering wrote in 1836 in the first American edition of the Organon of Medicine: Whether the theories of Hahnemann are destined to endure a longer or a shorter space, whether they be the best or not, time only can determine; be it as it may however, it is a matter of minor importance. For myself, I am generally considered as a disciple and adherent of Hahnemann, and I do indeed declare, that I am one among the most enthusiastic in doing homage to his greatness; but nevertheless I declare also, that since my first acquaintance with homeopathy, (in the year 1821), down to the present day, I hve never yet accepted a single theory in the Organon as it is promulgated. I feel no aversion to acknowledge this even to the venerable sage himself. It is the genuine Hahnemannean spirit totally to disregard all theories, even those of one’s own fabrication, when they are in opposition to the results of pure experience. All thoeries and hypotheses have no positive weight whatever, only so far as they lead to new experiments, and afford a better survey of the results of those already made. (page 17) (12)

  5. Hering – 1865
    It seems that Hering did not further elaborate on this subject, at least in the American literature, until 20 years later. In 1865, he published an article in the first volume of The Hahnemannian Monthly called “Hahnemann’s three rules concerning the rank of symptoms”. Hering states in this article that:

    • “The quintessence of Hahnemann’s doctrine is, to give in all chronic diseases, i.e., such as progress from without inwardly, from the less essential parts of our body to the more essential, from the periphery to the central organs, generally from below upwards – to give in all such cases, by preference, such drugs as are opposite in their direction, or way of action, such as act from within outward, from up downward, from the most essential organs to the less essential, from the brain and the nerves outward and down to the most outward and the lowest of all organs, to the skin… All the antipsoric drugs of Hahnemann have this peculiarity as the most characteristic; the evolution of their effects from within towards without. (page 6-7)
    • “Hahnemann states, in his treatise on Chronic Diseases, American translation p.171: Symptoms recently developed are the first to yield. Older symptoms disappear last. Here we have one of Hahnemann’s general observations, which like all of them, is of endless value, a plain, practical rule and of immense importance.
    • “The above rule might also be expressed in the following words: In diseases of long standing, where the symptoms or groups of symptoms have befallen the sick in a certain order, succeeding each other, more and more being added from time to time to those already existing, in such cases this order should be reversed during the cure; the last ought to disappear first and the first last.” (page 7-8) (13)

    It is very clear here that Hering makes no mention of a law but rather of a rule, that the symptoms ought to disappear in the reverse order of their appearance during the homeopathic treatment of patients with chronic disease of psoric origin, the ones that progress from without inwardly, from less important to more important organs and generally from below upwards.

  6. Hering – 1875
    In 1875, Hering published the first volume of Analytical Therapeutics of the Mind in which he stated that “only such patients remain well and are really cured, who have been rid of their symptoms in the reverse order of their development”. (page 24) (14) Here Hering makes no mention of the three other propositions regarding the direction of cure: from above downwards, from within outwards and from the more important to the less important organs. Why? Were they not considered as important to evaluate the direction of cure as stated in previous years?
    In the same work, Hering also explains that he adopted Hahnemann’s arrangement of the materia medica: “First inner symptoms, then outer ones. This order we have now uniformly preserved throughout the whole work.” (page 21) In explaining why he adopted this arrangement he says: “The arrangement as well as the style of printing, has the one object especially in view, viz.: to make it as easy as possible for the eye, and through the eye, for the mind to find what is looked for.” He makes no mention of this arrangement corresponding to a direction of cure, as it has been suggested by some well wishing homeopaths.

    The origin of the term “Hering’s law”
    Where does the term “Hering’s law” come from as it seems never to have been mentioned in the literature during Hering’s time? The earliest mention I have been able to find in the homeopathic literature dates from 1911, in an article published by Kent in the first volume of the Transactions of the Society of Homœopathicians called “Correspondence of Organs, and the Direction of Cure”. Kent writes:

    • “Hering first introduced the law of direction of symptoms: from within out, from above downward, in reverse order of their appearance. It does not occur in Hahnemann’s writings. It is spoken of as Hering’s law. There is scarcely anything of this law in the literature of homœopathy, except the observation of symptoms going from above to the extremities, eruptions appearing on the skin and discharges from the mucous membranes or ulcers appearing upon the legs as internal symptoms disappear.
    • “There is non-specific assertion in the literature except as given in the lectures on philosophy at the Post- Graduate School.” (15)

    It is reasonable to assume that Kent was the one that officialized the term “Hering’s law” and so inadvertently popularized the concept of the existence of a clear and precise law of direction of cure. (At least up till 1899, at Kent’s Post-Graduate School of Homeopathics, the directions of cure were still called “the Three Directions of cure [given by Hahnemann].) (16) By using the name of Hering it is reasonable to say that Kent thus created false and misleading historical assumptions. Since H.C. Allen had died two years previously (1909), the profession, at least in North America, had no other leaders capable to refute Kent and defend the classic Hahnemannian tradition. (It is to be remembered that in 1908 H.C. Allen had severely criticized the materia medica of the new synthetic remedies that Kent had been publishing since 1904 in The Critique. Kent was at the time the associate editor of this journal in which, almost monthly, he had been publishing the materia medica of a new synthetic remedy, each of very questionable value. During an open session at the annual meeting of the International Hahnemannian Association, Allen and G.P. Waring accused Kent of publishing materia medica that was “without proving or any clinical experience”, which would have been completely contrary to the strict inductive method intrinsic to homeopathy. (17)

    Kent then stopped permanently the publication of these synthetic remedies, even the ones that he had previously promised for upcoming publication in The Critique(18) Although Kent continued to publish regularly in The Critique until 1911 he restricted his articles to reporting clinical cases rather than materia medica. Never was a synthetic remedy ever published by Kent after the initial criticism of Allen even in his own journal, The Homœopathician, that he founded in 1912. Furthermore, when Kent published the second edition of his Lectures on Homœopathic Materia Medica in 1912 [the first edition was in 1904], all the synthetic remedies published between 1904 and 1908 were omitted.)

    In this same article, Kent says that in the course of treatment of a patient suffering with a psychic disease of the will (problems of affections, grief, anger, jealousy, etc), the heart or liver will be affected as the treatment progresses.

    While in a patient suffering from a mental disease (problems of the intellect), the stomach or the kidney will be affected during appropriate homeopathic treatment. Were these comments on the direction of cure and correspondence of organs based on Kent’s impeccable and meticulous observations or was he rather formulating hypotheses? He does not explain further but he does mention later in the same paper that “through familiarity with Swedenborg, I have found the correspondences wrought out from the Word of God harmonious with all I have learned in the past thirty years. Familiarity with them aids in determining the effect of prescriptions.” (15)

    Nowhere was I able to find in the writings of Kent, including in a collection of not yet republished lesser writings, any other mention of Hering’s law as to the direction of cure.

    Discussion and Conclusion
    First let us briefly review the highlights of what has been so far demonstrated:

    • Between 1828 and 1843, Hahnemann enunciated his theories of chronic diseases and described his observations and rules about the progression and resolution of these chronic diseases. One key point of his theory is that a skin eruption is the first manifestation of psora, which is the source of all chronic diseases of non-venereal origin. In chronic disease the presenting symptoms of the patient (“those ailments which have been most constant and unchanged”) may aggravate and will disappear in the reverse order of their appearance with the correct antipsoric remedies in the correct posology. Possibly, old symptoms may return during an antipsoric treatment. In all diseases, if after a homeopathic remedy the psychic symptoms are the first to improve or aggravate it is a most certain sign of curative change. For Hahnemann this inside outward improvement was not a law but rather a most certain sign of curative change. Finally not all diseases progress from outside inwards but certain diseases (psychosomatic diseases) can progress from within outwards.
    • In 1845, Hering enunciated the original observations of Hahnemann as a law of order in a work never to be published. In this law he mentions essentially four points, that “the improvement in pain takes place from above downward; and in diseases, from within outward… Chronic diseases if thoroughly cured, always terminate in some cutaneous eruption” and lastly “the thorough cure of a widely ramified chronic disease in the organism is indicated by the most important organs being first relieved; the affection passes off in the order in which the organs had been affected, the most important being relieved first, the less important next, and the skin last”. As a reader I do not clearly sense that Hering is officially proclaiming the original observations of Hahnemann as an absolute law but rather that there is a “law of order” during a curative process. Also I was unable to find Hering or any of his contemporaries referring further to this unpublished work or to a law of direction of cure.
    • In 1865, Hering described these observations not as a law but as Hahnemann’s general observations or as plain practical rules. Essentially he emphasizes the proposition that the symptoms should disappear in the reverse order of their appearance during the treatment of patients with chronic psoric diseases.
    • In 1875, Hering now discussed only one proposition, that the symptoms will disappear in the reverse order of their appearance. The three other propositions are now not mentioned at all.
    • All the illustrious contemporaries of Hering seems to remain silent on this point, at least from my review of the literature.
    • In 1911, Kent, almost arbitrarily, calls the original observations of Hahnemann “Hering’s law”.

    Now, with Kent’s powerful influence, most modern works and presentations on homeopathy began to declare Hering’s law as an established fact and seemingly assumed that it has been thoroughly verified since the beginning of homeopathy, although no author, to my knowledge, has so far been able to substantiate what each is repeating from the other. Here is one clear sign which indicates how profoundly the homeopathic profession of today has been cut off from its original and most essential sources. During the years of its decline in the U.S. the profession experienced a gradual discontinuity from its original foundation and started to rely more and more on a neo-foundation dating back to the turn of the present century. Each new generation of homeopaths has readily accepted Hering’s law as a perfect law of cure and so unintentionally perpetuated a misleading assumption. For students it is an attractive concept but we clinicians must stand up and report our observations even if they are contrary to the teaching we have received.

    From reviewing the literature, it seems unlikely that the law formulated by Kent in 1911 is a fair represention of Hering’s overall understanding of a direction of cure and that neither Kent nor anyone else has been able thus far to clinically demonstrate that the original observations of Hahnemann constituted in fact a perfect law of nature. But if we assume, for a moment, that the law formulated by Kent is true, would all symptoms then have to disappear, not only in the reverse order of their appearance, but also from above downwards, from within outwards and from more important to less important organs?

    To comply with this law it would mean that all diseases to be curable must proceed from outside inwards, from below upwards and from less important to more important organs. Many acute diseases and a whole list of chronic diseases such as psychosomatic diseases and others that develop from within outwards (for example cases of arthritis followed by psoriasis), or diseases that develop from above downwards, as in certain cases of polyarthritis, would then be theoritically incurable. Or (since we know this not to be the case) they are curable, but represent notable exceptions to Kent’s formulation of a law of direction of cure.

    In many cases of chronic disease the direction of disappearance of symptoms will contradict at least one of the four propositions. I assume that we all agree that the enunciation of a law must be based on impeccable observations. A law, if it is to be called a law, must explain all observable phenomena of direction of cure. It is unacceptable to use limited or even selected clinical phenomena to confirm a supposed law.

    This situation appears to exist when certain homeopaths in their attempts to defend “pure” homeopathy subscribe to the position that what is observed as contrary to Hering’s law, as formulated by Kent, is only due to poor prescribing, suppressive at times, palliative at best but surely not curative. For them what is wrong, is not the law but the prescription: “the simillimum was not given.”

    Personally I use and can daily confirm the original observations of Hahnemann concerning the direction of cure and have found them extremely helpful to evaluate the evolution of diseases or of cure but I have not been able to substantiate these observations as a law and have not yet found a colleague with such substantiation. I use them as plain practical rules.

    Probably by the end of my career, homeopathy will have become widely accepted. I would then resent it if a group of objective scientists clinically investigate the principles of homeopathy, and find numerous exceptions not abiding to our idealistic or dogmatic conception of Hering’s law; thus renderiing it only “a plain, practical rule“. I would similarly resent having a group of scientists saying that for the last hundred or more years the homeopathic profession has been blindly erring in assuming that Hering’s law was an irrefutable fact.

    Five of the many plagues that have hindered the growth of homeopathy are ignorance, egotism, dogmatism, idolatry and the diversion from the inductive method. In his last address to the profession in an article published in the August 1880 (Hering died on July 23, 1880.) issue of the North American Journal of Homœopathy, Hering warned us that “if our school ever gives up the strict inductive method of Hahnemann we are lost, and deserve to be mentioned only as a caricature in the history of medicine.” (19) Indeed, since its early beginning, the tendency to rationalize the practice of medicine has also constantly threatened homeopathy. Hahnemann, who had a thorough understanding of the history of medicine, knew that the only sure way was based on the experimental method. Hering demonstrated the same rigor. Unfortunatively, we can not say the same of Kent. Let us now start carefully observing and reporting any facts that would help to perfect Hahnemann’s original observations. If a direction of cure can be expressed within the context of a law, then so be it. But until demonstrated otherwise, it should remain “a plain, practical rule”. The law that we suspect still needs to be rightly formulated.

    At present it seems appropriate to refer to these observations as the rules of the direction of cure. To refer to these as Hahnemann’s or Hering’s rules may further prolong the confusion. From my personal experience, it appears that the four rules are not applicable to all cases and that there is a hierarchy among them, i.e., they do not have equal value. The first indication that a disease is being cured under homeopathic treatment is that the presenting and reversible (Many symptoms related to irreversible lesions can not be expected to totally disappear; consequently the more a symptom is related to organic changes, the less likely, or more slowly it will disappear. The greater the irreversibility of the pathology the greater the symptoms will linger. The practitioner can easily be confused by these important exceptions, which are often not well perceived. Therefore this rule [of symptoms disappearing in the reverse order of appearance] is generally less applicable to symptoms deriving from organic lesions.) symptoms of the disease will disappear in the reverse order of their appearance.

    This confirms the observations as pointed out originally and plainly by Hahnemann in The Chronic Diseases and later by Hering in 1865 and 1875. This means that during the treatment of patients suffering with chronic diseases of non-venereal origin and also at times with acute diseases, the presenting symptoms of the patient’s chronic dynamic disease (as opposed to the symptoms resulting essentially from gross error of living) will disappear in the reverse order of their appearance. So the presenting symptoms that have developed in the order of A B C D E seem to consistently disappear in the order of E D C B A. This rule seems to have supremacy over the other three rules: from more important to the less important organs, from within outwards and from above downwards.

    The word “presenting” is here emphasized in order to state perfectly clearly that the symptoms that will disappear in the reverse order of the their appearance are only the presenting symptoms, and that it is not at all expected that every ailment experienced by the patient in his past will again be re-experienced under homeopathic treatment. In fact only a few of these old symptoms and conditions will reappear during a homeopathic treatment, usually the ones that have unmistakably been suppressed by whatever influences. Beside antipathic treatment that will suppress symptoms and normal functions of the organism (perspiration or menses) there are other measures which will cause suppression of symptoms, first, dissimilar diseases, natural or artificial; second, external influences such as exposure to cold temperature, (i.e., suppressed menses from getting the feet wet); and lastly, internal influences that cause the person to suppress emotions such as anger or grief. This rule concerning cure in the reverse order of appearance of the presenting and reversible symptoms of the disease is the most important of the four as it is observable in almost all cases. The importance of this rule is well emphasized by Hering in 1865 when he mentioned:

    • “This rule enables the Hahnemannian artist not only to cure the most obstinate chronic diseases, but also to make a certain prognosis when discharging a cases, whether the patient will remain cured or whether the disease will return, like a half-paid creditor, at the first opportunity.” (12)

    The second most important (applicable) rule in the hierarchy is that cure will proceed from more important to less important organs. Third in importance is the rule that cure will proceed from within outwards. Fourth, least important and least often observable, the cure will proceed from above downwards. Hahnemann’s observation thatof all the signs that indicate a small beginning of improvement, the psychic condition of the patient and his general demeanor are the most certain and revealing is seen as the source of the last three rules. “The very beginning of improvement is indicated by a sense of greater ease, composure, mental freedom, higher spirits, and returning naturalness.” (paragraph 253) 10 This original observation of Hahnemann, which is verified daily, does not contradict the first rule in any case because the first sign of improvement can be and is often different than the symptom that would first disappear.

    Consequent to Hahnemann’s theory, (that all diseases, acute and chronic of non-venereal origin, come from the original malady called psora and its first manifestation is a skin eruption) all cases of chronic disease of dynamic origin must develop a skin eruption to be totally cured. As it seems unfeasible to demonstrate, it should at best be used as a working hypothesis and not as a law. For a law to exist it must be demonstrable without exception. Hahnemann had a clear opinion about the role of the physician as theorist when he wrote in the preface to the fourth volume of The Chronic Diseases:

    • “I furnished, indeed, a conjecture about it [on how the cure of diseases is effected], but I did not desire tocall it an explanation, i.e., a definite explanation of the modus operandi. Nor was this at all necessary, for it is only incumbent upon us to cure similar symptoms correctly and successfully, according to a law of nature [similia similibus curantur] which is being constantly confirmed; but not to boast with abstract explanations, while we leave the patients uncured; for that is all which so-called physicians have hitherto accomplished.” (8)

    To end this thesis, I would like to leave you with the spirit of some pertinent thoughts of Constantine Hering. In 1879, in the last two paragraphs to the preface of his last work, The Guiding Symptoms of our Materia Medica, he writes:

    • “It has been my rule through life never to accept anything as true, unless it came as near mathematical proof as possible in its domain of science; and, in the other hand, never to reject anything as false, unless there was stronger proof of its falsity.
    • “Some will say, “but so many things – a majority of all observations – will thus remain between the two undecided.” So they will; and can it be helped? It can, but only by accumulating most careful observations and contributing them to the general fund of knowledge.” (20)

    And finally he wrote in 1845 in the preface of Hahnemann’s Chronic Diseases:

    • “It is the duty of all of us to go farther in the theory and practice of Homœopathy than Hahnemann has done. We ought to seek the truth which is before us and forsake the errors of the past.” (page 9) (11)

    References

    1. Kent JT. Lectures on Homœopathic Philosophy. 2nd Ed. Chicago: Ehrhart & Karl, 1929.
    2. Close S. The Genius of Homœopathy. Philadelphia: Boericke & Tafel, 1924.
    3. Roberts HA. The Principles and Art of Cure by Homœopathy. 2nd Revised Edition. Rustington: Health Science Press, 1942.
    4. Boericke G. A compend of the Principles of Homœopathy for Students in Medicine. Philadelphia: Boericke & Tafel, 1929.
    5. Raue CG, Knerr CB, Mohr C, eds. A Memorial of Constantine Hering. Philadelphia: Press of Globe Printing House, 1884.
    6. Eastman AM. Life and Reminiscences of Dr. Constantine Hering. Philadelphia: Published by the family for private circulation, 1917.
    7. Knerr CB. Life of Hering. Philadelphia: The Magee Press, 1940.
    8. Hahnemann SC. The Chronic Diseases. Trans. by LF Tafel. Philadelphia: Boericke & Tafel, 1896.
    9. Hahnemann SC. Organon of Medicine. Trans. by W Boericke. Philadelphia: Boericke & Tafel, 1920
    10. Hahnemann SC. Organon of Medicine. Trans. by J Kunzli. Los Angeles: J.P. Tarcher, 1982.
    11. Hering C. Preface. In Hahnemann SC. The Chronic Diseases. Trans. by CJ Hempel. New-York: William Radde, 1845.
    12. Hering C. Preface to the first American edition. In the Organon of Homœopathic Medicine. New-York: William Radde, 1836.
    13. Hering C. Hahnemann’s Three Rules Concerning the Rank of Symptoms. Hahnemannian Monthly 1865;1:5-12.
    14. Hering C. Analytical Therapeutics of the Mind. Vol 1. Philadelphia: Boericke & Tafel, 1875.
    15. Kent JT. Correspondence of Organs, and Direction of Cure. Trans Soc. Homœopathicians 1911;1:31-33.
    16. Loos JC. Homœopathic Catechism. Journal of Homœopathics 1898-1899;2:480-488.
    17. Mastin JM. Editorial. Critique 1908;15:277-278.
    18. Mastin JM. Editorial. Critique 1907;14:228-229.
    19. Hering C. Apis. North American Journal of Homœopathy 1880;29:29-35.
    20. Hering C. The Guiding Symptoms of our Materia Medica. Vol 1. Philadelphia: The American Publishing Society, 1879.
Advertisements

Homoeopathy and haute couture… and ducks…

Vera Resnick

Don’t you find it frustrating when you try something on which is labelled One Size – and it’s not Your Size?  But really, why should you expect One Size to fit everyone? or to suit everyone – an entirely different matter.

You could call homeopathy the “haute couture” of the alternative medicine world.  There is really only one time when one size possibly fits all, and that’s in the use of oral Arnica as a first remedy in accidents, falls, bumps, breaks, etc.  (oral Arnica, not the creams, gels, potions and their ilk, as I have explained here).

I recently started working with a patient.  His first response to the remedy I gave was quite good, and it looked as if we could move ahead.  But then he wrote he was feeling much worse.

What happened? I asked, concerned.

Oh, I felt like I was coming down with flu and started taking Oscillococcinum. (It’s an over-the-counter Boiron flu remedy, a highly diluted preparation based on duck liver extract, well you did want to know).

Ahuh, I responded, grimacing at the Whatsapp screen

I put a few grains in a bottle of water, he continued enthusiastically, and sip it throughout the day.

Brace yourselves, I’m about to go into capitals.  PLEASE DO NOT DO THIS.  NOT AT HOME.  NOT IN THE OFFICE.  NOT ANYWHERE…

Please stop the Oscillo, I requested gently.

Of course, came the response, I’ll just finish this bottle.

Sigh…

Many people are helped by lemon tea with honey for a sore throat or a cold, by coffee when they need a pick-me-up, by chicken soup if they aren’t vegetarian.  But apart from use of Arnica in injuries, as a rule homoeopathic remedies must be tailored to the needs of the patient.  This was particularly true for this young man, who was already taking a remedy.  The symptoms he was experiencing may have been part of his ongoing treatment process.

Several years ago, I was teaching in a program for pensioners, and one of the students came up to me with a question.

My doctor told me to take a homeopathic medicine for my menopause symptoms, she said, a worried look on her face.  Since I started taking it, I’ve been getting the most terrible headaches.

I looked at the package.  Homoeopathic remedies are very much the dual-edged sword as they can cause symptoms as well as heal symptoms.  The symptoms caused by remedies usually go away within a day or two of stopping, but that doesn’t make them less uncomfortable when you’re going through them.  Sure enough, one of the remedies listed on the package was a superb headache producer – and a remedy that is wonderful for a particular kind of headache, which this lady had not been suffering from before she took the remedy.   She stopped taking the remedy and the headache went away.

Most people buy over-the-counter homoeopathy remedies at some point or other.  Just be aware that any new symptom you may be having is very possibly because of the remedy you used.  And never use another homoeopathic remedy when you’re in treatment with a homoeopath without discussing it first with your practitioner.

New I.H.M. registered member. Karin Kaunis. DHom Med (Lic) IHM

From Estonia, Karin came for a 4 day Seminar with us.

It was obvious that Karin had done a lot of self study and research from the outset. She had attended a school in Finland in the 2000s, yet felt not ready to be the practitioner she knew she could be.

Long story short, she attended a couple of conferences in other countries other than her own, and again experienced a confusion at the methodologies they proposed, feeling it was not quite how Hahnemann intended the homoeopathic practice of medicine should be.

Eventually, she found the IHM, who utilise the Therapeutic Pocket Book in their practice and came for 4 days study.

The days  included at least 8 cases per teaching day along with the other subjects, and it a pleasure to see the approach Karin took in analysing each case. She was not phased by pathology or overwhelmed with mentalisation, and took each case and broke it down into the requisite components to isolate homoeopathic symptoms from named disease symptoms.

We were happy to offer Karin the membership knowing that she will serve Estonia well as a Hahnemannian approach homoeopath for the benefit of the community.

 

The Mexico clinic.

This is the personal clinic of Dr Guillermo Zamora in Mexico..

He treats the local populace there for reasonable prices..

 

I love to see how the clinics look and run in other countries…

 

 

 

He dispenses his own medicines.

 

 

 

 

The consulting room…

Thoughts.

The loneliness of the long distance homoeopath

One day.

Recently a close colleague and friend refered a patient to me. I dont think he felt confident in his abilities to deal with the issue. I totally refute this erroneous notion but once I looked at the scans supplied of the patients disorder, I understood why. I was filled with sadness and dismay. Rarely have I seen such an infiltration of tumours in organs. I knew we were dealing with a small time frame in which to attempt to get get the body to heal itself if at all possible.

One day.

We talked on the phone and as I took the symptoms as felt by the patient, I was struck by the determination to overcome the problem, yet I also felt that the patient knew how difficult a position they were in. I was not asked for a prognosis, because between us in the short time we knew each other, only one hour, there was an openess and honesty present. We both knew what we were dealing with.

We got the core of the issue quickly. I believe our conversation allowed the patient to accept some things about life and let go of troublesome feelings. Relaxation was heard in the voice.

My mind had formulated a symptomatic choice of remedy, yet I wanted to be sure so as to not make a mistake. We talked on the Friday and I said that I would contact again on the Sunday with the remedy choice and protocol for taking.

One day.

24 hours later, the patients life ended due to being overwhelmed with the disease.

Im not a person to cry easily. I am a person to be affected deeply though by emotions. Death is so final. It is the culmination of life. Where there is hope and a quality of life to be had, I expend all my efforts to try and make it happen. I trust my therapy as the best one generally to facilitate that.

I cannot carry this experience as a failure on my part simply because I didnt get to initiate treatment. I am however grateful that I had the chance to talk with the patient and had the chance to extend support and kindness and human love in the hour of need. No promises, no false hopes, just a sharing.

There is no one to blame. It is the results of human biology and hereditary and environmental situations.

Would homoeopathy have helped? Who knows. Sometimes the human body will not respond depending on the maintaining causes, and sometimes a gentle persuasive touch from the similar remedy alters everything towards health.

I know the law of similars is the only real chance a living body has… so I keep going.

Im sorry I wasnt there earlier for you.

 

 

Further thoughts on Psora

A lot of reflective thinking today. If disease development follows infection along a pathway, for example Tuberculosis, there is a known pathology in the aetiology. We expect a singular disease expression. However, Hahnemann opened the concept that all non venereal disease could be linked in some way. He attributed it to skin ailments which could cause internal problems, and of course has had thousands of years to modify.

Conceptually, I accept the link. How it works even evaded Hahnemanns thinking, so he left the matter open for further investigation and consideration.

Here is where I am with it all. Its my thoughts and I take full responsibility if Im wrong…

There is nothing to prevent mankind from being susceptible to all things that affect mankind. Some diseases will overcome the immune system without mercy. SOME individuals will escape the effects but generally, mankind per se will be affected.

In real terms, we as Earths inhabitants, get sick, locally and globally. Some diseases affect nations of certain ethnic characteristics more than another and some nations have no immunity to other nations diseases at all. Yet in this day and age, the world is pretty much an open field as far as disease is concerned.

I postulate the theory that humans to a lesser or greater degree, carry genetically and biologically, the capacity to develop ANY disease as we are predisposed to them, and as such ALL disease share a link. There is no such thing as a PSORA infection. There however is the ability to contage an infection from someone who carries bacteria, or a virus, or a fungus which is PART of the connected worldwide disease source which is classified as Psora. Genetically, I am sure we pass on susceptibility which is triggered when we get infected.

Hahnemann stated that he himself never had Psora. Which logically means that he never contaged a connected disease, but was susceptible to annual acute diseases of no deeper connection.

This allows for people to stop looking for the missing infection of Psora… It is not there. IT never has been. Once infected with certain disease causations, we are open to everything, dependent on our immunity and level of health.

I welcome thoughts on this topic.

Psora. Compton Burnett

……….It is due, let us say, to psora, but we have no clear conception of What psora is.

Psora needs to  be split up into its component parts, no easy task; it roots in the vague, its trunk and boughs run  away into anywhere.

The Psora of the homoeopaths seems somehow true, but it has no proper  beginning, no definite course, and ends in pathological chaos. Perhaps we study it in Hahnemann, and in the best writers on the subject, and after doing our best to master it, we rise  from our studies with no clear idea, and we finally decide to abandon psora as an intangible  myth, and then we proceed with our clinical work; but, before long, we stumble against a very  tangible something, and on looking at the stumbling block, we find writ large upon it the word  Psora! Have I then hit upon a solution of the psora-problem? No; but if we cannot break the
whole faggot, we may perchance break one stick of it.

Why Boenninghausen?

Translated from the Spanish. Original Post here: https://institutodemedicinahomoeopaticaamericalatina.wordpress.com/por-que-boenninghausen/

By Dr. Guillermo Zamora, Surgeon UAG, Dhom. Lic. For the Institute for Homoeopathic Medicine.

The story begins about 14 years ago, when I was a little dissatisfied with the results of the method I was taught in the postgraduate school (the Kentian), I began to investigate other possibilities of obtaining a more exact remedy in my prescriptions.

At that time, one of our teachers, who taught the aforementioned method, alluded to a small book of medical matter that she held in her hand, and affirmed that her father (the founder of the school) was very successful in his prescriptions thanks to that work. At that time I paid close attention to that book and wrote down all the details of the reference on a small piece of blank sheet. Time later, I began to read it and I realized that it was a medical matter that contained symptoms that were called “Keynotes” (Key symptoms) … something completely removed from the logic of Kent.

Once I graduated, I decided to create a flowchart, which I organized based on the information contained in this work and some others that contained Keynotes symptoms. I arranged in different divisions corresponding for example to the locations, circumstances, Mentals, Sensations, Modalities, and many others. It took more than a year to finish ordering ALL the symptoms in this work.

 

Flowchart

While I was doing the work I was impregnated with the keynote symptoms of this little book which I read and reread no less than 6 or 7 times, while my effectiveness rate improved day after day. It drew my attention that at some point the author quoted a certain Boenninghausen, at that time someone unknown to me, but as I divided my flow chart I began to realize that Keynotes were nothing other than COMBINATIONS of one location + one modality, or of a sensation with a modality, or even in some occasions, of a location with a sensation. For this reason, a little later I decided to get a copy of the Therapeutic Pocket Book (TPB), version 1846 of Boenninghausen.

During the time I tried to use this copy, an English version, the truth is that I was very confused to use it; I did not have a clear idea of ​​how to use it, and I was not familiar with it either. Most of the time, I used my flow chart, and to a lesser extent Kent’s repertoire to consult some rubric. However, although the effectiveness rate had increased markedly (say 20 to 50-60%), I still felt dissatisfied with the result.

One day, there comes one of those moments that you think you are not going to touch, and one of my children begins to get sick of the skin (Dermatitis), coming to present on one occasion Ritter syndrome (a disease caused by golden Staphylococcus) . Despite all my efforts, both in my diagram and through the use of Kent ‘s repertoire, only Rhus – T was thrown at me , which was in accordance with the recommendation of several international homeopaths whom I had asked for an interconsultation. If anything, the recommendation was made to use Sulfur as an alternative. Anyway, frustratingly these remedies did not give the desired result.

It is then, that after having read some of his dissertations, and astonished by the content of them, appears on the scene Dr. Gary Weaver, President of the Institute for Homoeopathic Medicine, who selflessly and making use of his knowledge and expertise in The TPB, helped me with my son’s case. He told me that my conclusion of Rhus-T through my tools was logical and even close to the diagnosis, but that in reality the remedy was Sepia . Little convinced of his diagnosis, I followed every step in his prescription. The result that would come shortly after would be surprising; and a couple of remedy changes along the way would be enough to solve the case completely.

Thus through this excellent homeopath I acquired knowledge really Hahnemannian method and I realized the great favors a good tool offers ( s for this reason that translated the TPB of Polony & Weaver Spanish ).  Today, Dr. Gary Weaver is still the person to whom I consult when I have problems in the family. Recently, another of my loved ones almost died (literally) from a kidney problem, and once I learned that when emotions are mixed, it is better to consult a colleague, he gave me an example of the success obtained when using a good tool in the correct way.

During this learning process, I understood that in those combinations that I observed during the construction of my flow chart, the Keynote symptom was always made up of a part that was very consistent in the proving, and of another that was shared by few remedies ( as I now know that Guernsey claimed), and that most came from the Therapeutic Pocket Book of Boenninghausen. But I also realized that the TPB is built by the abstraction of symptoms from the provings and that it has the quality of being able to be used in order to recombine by analogysymptoms to obtain an infinity of combinations that have never even been seen before in a proving. That’s why we can deduce, that many combinations were out of those Keynotes. Therefore, it is also important to mention that this process of abstraction and recombination during the taking of a case has a specific methodology, which makes this repertoire a unique and indispensable work.

Nowadays I use the Boenninghausen repertoire most of the time in my daily practice (95%), sometimes I consult my flow chart (4%) and very rarely (Kent’s repertoire) (1%). My effectiveness rate has been increasing, from 85-95%.

You may ask: Is it possible to succeed using Kent’s repertoire? The answer is YES, but with a certain margin of error, and as long as we have an acceptable knowledge of Pure Materia Medica (and EC), we know what rubrics to use and what is the true method to take a case according to the Hahnemann guidelines. , who until now has only been misinterpreted and little investigated by most of the schools, even those that advertise themselves as very “Hahnemannian”. On the contrary, it is rare school that comes to support a seminar like ours, unique in its kind. What has happened is similar to the game of the “decomposed telephone” where a message that is given at the origin arrives completely distorted to the last receiver. By then, when we arrive with an apparently “new” message, but that simply was NOT taken into account (or was not known about it), interests are affected (school programs, homeopathic software, books, seminars, “dubiously experienced remedies that are for sale”, ie laboratories, etc. ) and then it seems that Hahnemann becomes repulsive to the “affected”, or in the more measured of the comments it is said that “Hahnemann and Boenninghausen are outdated”, as if science was a matter of fashion, and even more serious, as if they had been studied and researched. In short, that same conflict of interest in the BIG PHARMA (pharmaceutical industry) by which the homeopathic community tears so much of its clothes, is the same problem that you have at home. homeopathic software, books, seminars, “dubiously experienced remedies that are for sale”, ie laboratories, etc.) and then it seems that Hahnemann becomes repulsive to the “affected”, or in the more measured of the comments it is said that “Hahnemann and Boenninghausen are outdated”, as if science were a matter of fashion, and even more serious, as if they had been studied and researched. In short, that same conflict of interest in the BIG PHARMA (pharmaceutical industry) by which the homeopathic community tears so much of its clothes, is the same problem that you have at home. homeopathic software, books, seminars, “dubiously experienced remedies that are for sale”, ie laboratories, etc.) and then it seems that Hahnemann becomes repulsive to the “affected”, or in the more measured of the comments it is said that “Hahnemann and Boenninghausen are outdated”, as if science were a matter of fashion, and even more serious, as if they had been studied and researched. In short, that same conflict of interest in the BIG PHARMA (pharmaceutical industry) by which the homeopathic community tears so much of its clothes, is the same problem that you have at home. or in the more measured of the comments it is said that “Hahnemann and Boenninghausen are outdated”, as if science were a matter of fashion, and even more serious, as if they had been studied and really researched. In short, that same conflict of interest in the BIG PHARMA (pharmaceutical industry) by which the homeopathic community tears so much of its clothes, is the same problem that you have at home. or in the most measured of commentaries it is said that “Hahnemann and Boenninghausen are outdated”, as if science were a matter of fashion, and even more serious, as if they had been studied and really investigated. In short, that same conflict of interest in the BIG PHARMA (pharmaceutical industry) by which the homeopathic community tears so much of its clothes, is the same problem that you have at home.

In the case of the teachers of the IMH none will teach a personal opinion, nor will teach philosophy, much less dare to tell you that they discovered the black thread or that they are the black thread as many modern gurus who are out there wanting self-proclaimed and that really AFFECT what is most important for a conscious homeopath; to his patients. The IMH teachers will only teach you genuine Homeopathy, as Hahnemann taught it and with which he cured tuberculosis, syphilis, pneumonia, psychosis, diarrhea, etc. etc. etc.

Now; returning to the best homeopath in history (after Hahnemann), Dr. Boenninghausen; I know that what I can say, being a little known person, may not have much value, but it is the same Hahnemann who bears witness to the sagacity of Boenninghausen. Hahnemann considered the work of Boenninghausen as one of the best works as we can see in the footnote number 109 of paragraph 153 in the Organon 6th. Edition:

“Dr. Von Boenninghausen, for the publication of the characteristic symptoms of homeopathic medicines and for his Repertory, has rendered a great service to Homeopathy …”

This repertoire fell into disuse given the popularity of Kent’s repertoire. However, thanks to the research of the Institute for Homoeopathic Medicine team on the original works and materials, it has been possible to elucidate that the Boenninghausen repertoire, specifically the Therapeutic Pocket Book version 1846, leads to the methodology established by Hahnemann himself; this repertoire is in itself, a SYNOPSIS of everything that constitutes case-taking and follow-up. This is reflected in the following testimony of Hahnemann:

“… .Bon von Bönninghausen of Münster has studied and captured my homeopathic treatment system so completely that as a homeopath it deserves to be given full confidence, and if I fell ill and could not help myself, I would not be entrusted to any other doctor . “

… Haehl, R .: Samuel Hahnemann, His Life and Work, 1922, 2 volumes, Indian edition, BJain, New Delhi, 1985, vol.2, p.483.

Only a few schools have made the decision to make a change in teaching, and only a handful of homeopaths have taken the decision in a personal and independent way to align themselves with the instructions proposed by Hahnemann by virtue of compliance with the principle of similar.

Is it too late to restore what has been destroyed?

A reflective comment

Its 4:53am. I am awake and my mind is thinking back to my childhood My mother would treat all our minor illnesses with different ‘natural’ products. My hay fever was ‘cured’ with a polypharmacy over the counter homoeopathic product. I grew up having a great respect for non mainstream medicines, but conversely would use the doctor when something non resolvable occurred. It was at this point in my late teens that I observed a difference in ‘alternative medicine’ ie herbal, and a medical treatment following a defined curative path, like acupuncture and homoeopathy.

Therein lies the dichotomy and the answer to mankinds choice. Modern medicine has decreed that it is the ONLY solution to all disease and is squeezing out everything that does not follow the allopathic mode. They point to ‘lifesaving’ medicines and treatments, ignoring the fact that the patient might be on a suppressive regime of medicines to quell the symptoms of whatever ails the patient for the remainder of their shortened life, only to succumb to an iatrogenic ending.

The strange thing is that medicine per se comes down to, not as one would expect, medicines, but to a choice of protocols. One involves a natural law and the other does not.

Hahnemann, in his monumental works, The Organon of Medicine, and the Chronic Diseases, gives a completely researched and science based observation of how living Organisms function in health and disease. I find it sad that this work which actually outlines the theory of modern disease processes is the most attacked medical practice today. Maybe its accuracy yet individualised treatment of a person is the root of the discontent felt by medical professionals. These professionals who believe that a blanket approach to drug therapy for the disease in question is the required response. It is a an easy solution. To treat a named disease instead of the individualised reaction to a named disease.

With the passing of years and growth in  experience Hahnemann came upon to  regard man more as an organism than as a machine. A machine is composed of many  parts, originally separate. Once these parts are put together,  its manifoldncss becomes unity. Like the human individual, it is assembled for a specific purpose.

It is both simple and complex. A machine is primarily complex and secondarily simple. However to the contrary, man is primarily simple and  secondarily complex. He originates from a single cell.  His growth means  multiplication and self-differentiation of the primitive cell to form diverse tissues and organs. Thus an organism is not artificially made, but grows, not put  together by the force from the outside, but develops from the centre to the  periphery or from  the  whole to the parts.

In disease, we find the disturbance located in the ‘central like mechanism’  which is manifested through perceptible sensory and functional changes of the body as  a whole; here nosology fails to be applied  as the symptoms do not refer  to  any particular organ  or  tissue;  and the man,  though  showing deviations from the perfectly healthy state, is not termed as  specifically diseased.

This is the stage  of Latent Psora. (INFECTION)  In course of time the disharmony of the whole or central life  is reflected on to the disharmony of life in the tissues or organs; and the disorder is manifested more  on the functional  plane  related to tissues or organs.  This  is  the  stage of secondary psora (INFECTION DEVELOPMENT) when  the disease  is  predominantly functional  in nature without proportionate structural changes in the tissues and organs.  This is followed by the tertiary stage of psora (DISEASE MANIFESTATION) where the gross structural changes in the tissues or organs appear—the  domain of pathology proper and nosology. Central functional changes.

  • functional changes of individual tissues or organs.
  • gross anatomical/pathological changes of individual tissues or organs.

this seems to be the order of progression in chronic diseases. Here the disease process starts  in a simple  way and  ultimately develops  into multilateral directions accordingly as different tissues or organs (though originating from a primordial cell) are affected simultaneously or  successively in course of time.

Hahnemann contends that the miasms (INFECTIONS) responsible for psora, syphilis and sycosis are of such a nature  as they  attack the central life-force at the outset and the primary derangement of the central life-force thus produced, makes the organism susceptible to many other agents to develop functional and structural changes in  individual tissues or organs, thus providing occasions for diverse naming or labeling  of diseased  conditions corresponding  to diverse tissues or organs damaged.  So in Chronic. cases  the central  life-force is primarily disturbed.

As there is a central life mechanism  corresponding to  the whole, there is life in the parts, tissues  or organs and there  is life in  every cell. Life is  a scale of energy forming a sort of hierarchy from cell-life to collective or central  life. Disease is disorder in any plane—material, vital or mental—as a whole or as a part constituting or conforming to the whole. In acute diseases, the disorder starts from lower scale of life in  the tissues or organs and this disorder acts on the  whole or central life, here the disease process is  the resultant of the action of the part and the reaction of the whole to it.  Here the disease process  seems to start  from outside to within or in the ascending order in the  hierarchy of life. The central life mechanism is disturbed eventually  but the change is  of more  a  superficial nature analogous somewhat to the condition of “induced magnetism”.

In chronic cases, the whole or central life is attacked and  disturbed first by some morbific agent of a miasmatic (INFECTIOUS) nature;  this central disturbance  leads to disturbance in  the life of tissues, organs or cells.

Here the disease process seems to start from within outwards or  in the descending hierarchy of life. That is why, in chronic diseases, constitutional symptoms (i.e., symptoms indicative of the disturbance of the central life mechanism)  are more marked;  whereas  in acute  cases, structural and functional changes of the tissues and  organism overshadow the constitutional symptoms. Herein  we get clues for evaluation  of symptoms in case-taking to treat patients  homoeopathically.

As is patently obvious, a person does not have to accept any of the above. Modern medicine accepts its own version and perception and stays within the bounds of its own concepts.

One thing I am sure of, the terminology gives it away. A ‘curative response’ comes from the organism and not from a medicine. Ergo a medicine CANNOT cure, it can only stimulate an organism to cure itself. If it does not follow this protocol, it is suppression.