In May, 2008, 64 year old Roger Daltrey – lead singer from rock band The Who– told The Times newspaper in England how homeopathy had saved his infant son from life threatening gastro-intestinal problems.
“I had a very, very dramatic experience with my son when he was nine months old. He had gastro difficulties, started throwing up, could not keep any food down and turned into skin and bone. At the hospital, they did every test to him, and in the end they just handed him back to me. My wife and I were in bits. My poor baby. The kid was dying. It was terrifying.”
Having heard of homeopathy, Roger searched the Yellow Pages and consulted a local homeopath who prescribed a remedy for his son. Roger then described how within two days his son began to show improvement, and, “Within two weeks he was putting weight on, keeping the food down. The trouble recurred periodically for a couple of years, but he’s now 27, a fit and healthy young man.”
“The bizarre thing is that I’ve got a chiropractor friend in LA whose baby landed up in exactly the same state. He thought he was about to lose him. But I recommended homoeopathic remedies, and he recovered too. That’s God’s honest truth. Now I bet doctors would say, ‘Oh, they’d have got better anyway’. But I can’t believe that.”
Whilst a guest speaker in May, 2009, at The Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health, First Annual Conference, held in London, Daltrey once again spoke about how distressing his son’s illness had been and the relief that came with homeopathic treatment.
Daltrey praised Prince Charles’ work as a supporter of complementary health therapies, and encouraged him to continue despite those who attempted to demean and detract from his efforts. He jokingly advised: “Don’t let the b*****ds grind you down!”
Roger Daltrey is among a long and distinguished list of musicians and singers who have spoken positively about homeopathy, from Beethoven, Chopin, and Schumann to the more recent Paul McCartney, George Harrison, Ravi Shankar, Jon Faddis, Dizzy Gillespie, Shirley Verrett, Pete Townshend, Bob Weir, Paul Rodgers, Annie Lennox, Cher, Tina Turner and Axl Rose.
v. Considering the innumerable surprising cures wrought through Homœopathy, in both acute and chronic diseases, this method of healing would doubtless find many more disciples in the medical world if its practices were not subject to some difficulties far from trifling. It is not only a time-absorbing, but also a troublesome business, to investigate carefully into all the characteristic features and peculiarities, and to gain perfect information concerning the present state of mind of the patient in every individual case of sickness, whether belonging to an epidemic or to the diseases sufficiently designated by name; and then the choice of a suitable remedy, on the principle of similars, according to its pure action, offers again new difficulties, and we are often entangled in such a mass of difficulties that it is not surprising if the less experienced homœopath, not to speak of the beginner in this method of healing, is not able to extricate himself. Without doubt, on this account, and also on account of the unsuitable selection of the remedy which frequently follows therefrom, is to be seen the reason why the latter does not accomplish the desired result. Every beginner will probably at times have seen, what in the case of experienced and observant homœopaths is recurring more and more rarely, that, even with very careful selection and apparent adaptability of the remedies, success does not always come up to the expectations, and at times no action at all or even an aggravation of the patient’s troubles ensues. In such cases we may safely depend upon it, either that the remedy given has been formerly misused in allopathic doses and on that account its symptoms have become habitual and very manifest, or that, on account of the oversight of one or more symptoms of the disease which would contra-indicate the remedy, its choice was a mistake and therefore without effect. In the former case there will be, as a rule, an increase in the patient’s sufferings, in the latter no noticeable
will be observed; in the former case there must then be made an attempt to
destroy the old drug disease by homœopathically selected antidotes, and in the
latter case by a careful examination of the disease image, and by a circumspect
selection of the remedy, the previous mistake should be rectified. It would
betray a great want of logical sequence and would denote a contradiction in
itself if one, from such experiences, were to form conclusions concerning the
unreliability of the homœopathic foundation principle (similia similibus). For
apart from the fact that almost everyone has ultimately had the opportunity to
convince himself of one or the other of the above-named causes, there would still
remain to be explained away the much more frequent cases in which such rapid
and lasting cures are accomplished that they frequently surpass the
expectations even of the physician himself. One would be obliged to set up the
contention that there existed in nature no sound therapeutic principle, a
contention which probably nobody would like to defend.
we would expect that to all physicians, honestly seeking after the truth, every
labour, be it ever so trifling, must be welcome, if it serves to advance this
(as the honorable Hufelandterms it) “solely direct curative
method,” namely, the homœopathic, and assists in the selection of the proper
remedy. The compiler of the following tables has not hesitated therefore to
consent to the many requests of homœopathic physicians, and even the urgent
demand of the worthy founder of this science of cure, to make them known
through the press, after having been kindly revised by Hofrath Hahnemann, and after making some changes
and improvements on the form in which they had already been communicated in
manuscript to the nearest homœopathic friends. Without laying a great value
upon the work, which contains no more than a tabulation of that which is
already known, it is intended to afford an easier comprehensive survey of some
peculiarities of the remedies which have hitherto been proved on healthy
persons, and to facilitate the work of those homœopaths who recognize the great
importance of such a compilation. We need scarcely be
reminded that in several reme-
vii. dies, and especially those only partially and imperfectly proved,
many uncertainties exist, and doubtless mistakes have occurred which only by
further proving can be discovered and corrected. In the meantime only that
could be used which we possessed, for Homœopathy never allows of hypotheses and
suppositions, and never borrows from the realm of opinions, but
understands the art of securing out of the realm of reality the pure truth.
The similarity which must exist between the natural disease
and the pure effects of the homœopathic remedy, in order that the latter may be
able to eradicate the former, must be complete in every respect. It is,
therefore, not sufficient to have found a remedy which is able to excite
similar sufferings to those about which the patient complains, and much less if
this similarity be confined merely to general names (such as headache,
toothache, bowel complaint, cramps and so forth), as some very ignorant persons
indeed are not ashamed to falsely attribute to Homœopathy. If the selected
remedy is to prove reliable and successful, its pure effects must be adapted to
the entire group of symptoms present, the
conception of the totality of the disease symptoms, and, therefore, not
only the sensations and pains, but also the aggravation and amelioration of the
symptoms according to time and circumstances and the mental condition of the
patient must correspond to all these in the remedy with the greatest possible
similarity. Only when the totality of the symptoms has been obtained with
completeness and exactness and when among the proved remedies one is found
which corresponds to the whole in similarity, or at least is in no way
contra-indicated, may we be sure of the desired success, provided that
the remedy has not been already misused in massive doses, and that now only so
much is given, as, according to experience, is sufficient to accomplish the
who are already acquainted with Homœopathy and have seen its wonderful effects
in diseases of the most diverse kind need, in order to appreciate the
preceding, only think of the
of the Küchenschelle (Anemone
pulsatilla) and the Brechnuss (Strychnos
nux vomica), the knowledge of which we must attribute to the immortal founder
of the art. Out of the numerous symptoms of these two excellently proved
polycrests a great number of disease images may be formed, corresponding as
strongly to the one as to the other. Even that which we know as especially
characteristic of both is nowhere so sharply demarcated as to prevent many
symptoms from manifesting quite a similarity or even contradicting each other. If then without reference to the predominating peculiarities
of each remedy a selection is made, it may not infrequently happen that the
improper remedy is chosen, because according to a few fragmentary symptoms it
seems to correspond more nearly to the present case of sickness. The
mistake lies, not in the principle of the homœopathic method nor even in the
manner of selection itself, but in beginning with an insufficient conception of
the totality of the symptoms of the disease and the totality of the symptoms of
the remedy. The Küchenschelle
(Pulsatilla) has not a few symptoms in the morning, in the open air, and
while moving, just as the Krähenaugen (Nuxvom.)
has several in the evening, in the room and during the rest of the body
. If we then confine ourselves, unintentionally, only to these
symptoms, we will find that we have selected an unsuitable remedy and cannot,
therefore, see the hoped-for success. It is
consequently of the utmost importance to become thoroughly acquainted with the
characteristics and peculiarities of every remedy, and especially of the
antipsorics. All of these possess the power to eradicate the sad conseqences of
one and the same miasmatic evil foundation, and have, therefore, for the most
part the same sphere of action, and there is between them a very great
similarity in their effects. Notwithstanding each of them has its own
peculiarities, just as the other medicines have, and never can one be used
instead of another with the same favorable results. In the most surprising
manner was this shown during the present year in the frequent intermittent
fevers, which were for the greatest part apparently of a psoric nature, and could,
therefore, in most cases be permanently and safely cured only by antipsoric
the antipsorics known up to the present time were then used, according to the
similarity of their symptoms, without the possibility of giving a preference to
one over the other, and, when a proper selection was made, especially based
upon the symptoms occurring during the apyrexia, their great curative power
demonstrated itself not only by the rapid disappearance of the fever and other
symptoms of the disease, but also by the fact that every patient was cured, and
of all those homœopathically cured not a single one suffered a relapse, a
condition which most generally prevailed after the allopathic use of Peruvian
Of course to obtain a complete characteristic picture of the
remedies, with the elimination of every uncertainty and half truth among the
pure effects of the same, when it is often so very difficult to distinguish the
primary effects from the after effects, can only be the result of united efforts
and mutual communications, and, without a separate homœopathic hospital under
the protection of the state, in which nothing but true facts may be gleaned and
confirmed, the science can only progress slowly. But
until the time that the young science, which is even now rendering such great
results, will see its most fervent wishes fulfilled, its disciples must not sit
idle, but everyone is under obligation to contribute according to his abilities
to its upbuilding, so that suffering humanity may become a partaker so much the
sooner of the blessings of those discoveries which have already proven curative
in manifold ways, and which promise immensely more.
following three tables contain a comparative survey of the action of all
remedies, up to this time, proved with a certain degree
perfection on healthy persons, according to the time of day, the position and
circumstances and according to the conditions of mind excited by them. In
all three the order of their rank is denoted by the first five letters of the
alphabet, so that the letter a designates the most decided,
predominating and manifest action, having nothing contradicting it; the letter cindicates that the remedy has an equal
action with reversed time or circumstances, and the letter ethe last or most subordinate place. The letters b
and ddenote the intermediate state, so that b
approaches to the highest rank and dto the lowest. When no letter is given, it signifies that nothing has been
found in the pure effects pertaining to that modality. This arrangement of the
different degrees of value appeared to the author the most serviceable and
comprehensive, and the number of the same entirely sufficient to denote the
compilation of the first table, which
contains the aggravation or amelioration of the suflerings according to
the time of day, gave us the most trouble, because the divisions of the day
are not capable of being sharply defined and because there is a want of
expressions in the general usage of language to define the various terms and
limits. Especially is this the case in regard to the morning and the evening,
whose limits are not uncommonly extended unreasonably, and then frequently a
part of the night as well as fore- and afternoon is included in them. Without
doubt, therefore, this table will consequently have to undergo the greatest
number of improvements and corrections.
second table, which contains the
action of the medicines in exciting (and
aggravating) or ameliorating (and
removing) their symptoms according to
circumstances, could in the most of instances easily he arranged according
to sure and clearly defined data. It was found soon after its compilation, that
here, as well as in the first table, not every symptom without distinction
could he taken into consideration, but that a selection had to be made among
them, with the omission of that part of them which would have given incorrect
results. The main rule for this selection was deduced from what the honorable
founder of Homceopathy teaches in that connection in the prefaces to Kriihenaugen (Nux vomica), Ki2chensclzelle
(Pulsatitla), Zaunrebe (Byronia), and Wurzelsumach
(Rh us), compared with the symptoms of the remedies which con-
For this reason only the symptoms of the head, eyes, teeth, respiration and
chest, limbs, and the general sufferings, night sufferings and fevers, were
taken into account in the first two tables, and the other regions were only
considered when, either on account of the small number or on account of a want of
clearness, doubts remained. It is still necessary to note that under the word
“Touch,” the heading of the second column of Table II., are also included scratching, rubbing, pressing, etc , and that
the modality “Agg.” expressesboth
the excitement [initiation] of a symptom and an aggravation, and by “Amel.” a ceasing as well as amelioration of the
sufferings is meant. The rest of these two tables needs no further explanation.
the third table, which contains a
comprehensive view of the various states
of mind produced by the remedies, the first five letters of the alphabet
have the same meaning as in the two preceding tables. In the rubrics the author
has endeavored to observe the most suitable psychological order so as to
facilitate comparison thereby as much as possible.
giving the names of the medicines in alphabetical order the systematic
tabulation of Dr. Rückert, which probably no homœopath is without, is followed,
excepting that the acids are always classified immediately according to their
bases, both to denote their close relationship in therapeutic respects and
because the finding of the former seemed thereby to be facilitated.
view of the use of these tables, it is scarcely necessary to remark that they
are in nowise intended to introduce a generalizing method into homœopathic
treatment. According to the almost unanimous contention of the most
distinguished medical authors and practitioners much mischief has been wrought
in allopathy just in this way, and consequently Homœopathy would have cause
enough to avoid it even if its entire system did not already consist in the
strongest individualization. Therefore, if we wish to proceed conscientiously
these tables should only be consulted after the case of sickness has been
carefully examined, and has been compared with the competing remedies, and then
as it were to solve some still remaining difficulties, or as a test for the
correctness of the choice made. The tables can in nowise
the most suitable remedy, but they will assist in the choice of the same and
prevent the likelihood of an unsuitable remedy being selected.
diligent study of the pure effects of the remedies must ever remain the
principal thing, but, as the beginner especially needs a “guiding string,” we
hope he will not seek it altogether in vain in these tables. One may especially
find in them, the author hopes, an
aid in becoming more familiar with
those medicines which vie with each other for
preference in given cases, and especially the antipsorics, and to
group them according to the
similarity of their effects. …
with the same intense desire after perfection that is everywhere so plainly
seen in all disciples of the homœopathic healing art, it is as much to be
expected as to be hoped for that the
present effort may be closely
examined in its details, be purified of unavoidable mistakes and errors, and thereby acquire the reliability which the
subject itself deserves.
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.
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
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.
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.”
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.
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)
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.
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)
Kent JT. Lectures on Homœopathic Philosophy. 2nd Ed. Chicago: Ehrhart & Karl, 1929.
Close S. The Genius of Homœopathy. Philadelphia: Boericke & Tafel, 1924.
Roberts HA. The Principles and Art of Cure by Homœopathy. 2nd Revised Edition. Rustington: Health Science Press, 1942.
Boericke G. A compend of the Principles of Homœopathy for Students in Medicine. Philadelphia: Boericke & Tafel, 1929.
Raue CG, Knerr CB, Mohr C, eds. A Memorial of Constantine Hering. Philadelphia: Press of Globe Printing House, 1884.
Eastman AM. Life and Reminiscences of Dr. Constantine Hering. Philadelphia: Published by the family for private circulation, 1917.
Knerr CB. Life of Hering. Philadelphia: The Magee Press, 1940.
Hahnemann SC. The Chronic Diseases. Trans. by LF Tafel. Philadelphia: Boericke & Tafel, 1896.
Hahnemann SC. Organon of Medicine. Trans. by W Boericke. Philadelphia: Boericke & Tafel, 1920
Hahnemann SC. Organon of Medicine. Trans. by J Kunzli. Los Angeles: J.P. Tarcher, 1982.
Hering C. Preface. In Hahnemann SC. The Chronic Diseases. Trans. by CJ Hempel. New-York: William Radde, 1845.
Hering C. Preface to the first American edition. In the Organon of Homœopathic Medicine. New-York: William Radde, 1836.
Hering C. Hahnemann’s Three Rules Concerning the Rank of Symptoms. Hahnemannian Monthly 1865;1:5-12.
Hering C. Analytical Therapeutics of the Mind. Vol 1. Philadelphia: Boericke & Tafel, 1875.
Kent JT. Correspondence of Organs, and Direction of Cure. Trans Soc. Homœopathicians 1911;1:31-33.
Loos JC. Homœopathic Catechism. Journal of Homœopathics 1898-1899;2:480-488.
Mastin JM. Editorial. Critique 1908;15:277-278.
Mastin JM. Editorial. Critique 1907;14:228-229.
Hering C. Apis. North American Journal of Homœopathy 1880;29:29-35.
Hering C. The Guiding Symptoms of our Materia Medica. Vol 1. Philadelphia: The American Publishing Society, 1879.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
……….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.