We could all talk about the Organon, Hahnemann's Journals, Scholten, Saine, Sherr, and many others who are considered to be the better homeopaths, but what is the point?

In the end, all that matters is whose method is superior in terms of curing patients. Nothing else matters!

I also wanted to state for the record, that I have read parts of the Organon as Herscu referrers too it often regarding certain points about how he developed his philosophy of disease and method. Here again, knowing the organon inside and out without having a method to back up a persons interpretation of the organon, that also proves out consistently in practice means nothing. Herscu has over 13-14 years of experience in using his method, that proves out in practice case after case. In fact, I have read 100’s of cases, many with details Paul provides about why his interpretation of the organon and all main principals of homeoapthy, logically fits into his method of case taking and anlysis and his heirarchy of methods. He has tied it all together to the point if you read it all, it cannot be disputed, aside form the main fact it works in practice.

The feedback I have received in the genral homeopathic world of patients and contiue to hear about from patients who have used homeopathy for chronic health issues is that less then 40% are being cured, many of them have been treated for 5-7-10 to 20+ years and while they have had short periods of better over all health the main problems come back as they are not having long-term sustained improvements. Sure there are the patients that need a simple polycrest and a miracle happens but this certainly appears to be the minority of cases. What is worse is, in some cases the deepest and most severe part of a person’s case was suppressed and for 2 people it resulted in their death. That is what I believe to be the biggest problem in homeopathy. If you do not find and treat the deepest state first and then do not prescribe remedies in the correct order, the case becomes compromised and may take years to get the person back to where they were so the correct remedy can be given. Again, I have clearly seen this happen to over 20 people who went to very well known homeopaths that you all have mentioned or I am sure you would know of them if I listed their names, but my intentions are not to tar and feather people but to bring the truth about homeopathy to the forefront.

I believe it is true that Herscu is:

Curing 80-90% of his chronic cases within 2-3 years or less, with 1-5 remedies or less depending how deep a state (Syphlitic, sycosis or psora and needing remedies that represent what Paul calls 4th phase remedies that reflect the deepest state) the patient is in when he first sees them, and I know he is curing many patients who went to other homeopaths that were considered to be some of the best in the world.

The 20 people who had gone to 2 of the better publicized homeopaths for 5-7 years+, that are now going to Herscu, or I have cured, have been cured or are clearly on their way, as I keep in touch with everyone I send to him. Yes, including cases I struggle with as I am only in the middle of his 2 year course and am still learning and only do homeopathy in my spare time from my full time job as a CEO of an allopathic recruiting firm I started wya before homeopathy - but I use alot of my earnings to promote it so it is nice to make money off the competition, and my 2 homeopathy websites. More importantly I don’t want to give remedies that may be suppressing the deeper state when I know Herscu can cure them.

Also considering the majority of Herscu's cases are people in severe states as he treats many children with Autism, ADD, etc and that most other patients are ones that went to other homeopaths that failed to cure them and in many instances, their cases have been compromised and are even more complicated now, I can not tell you how impressed I am with his results.

Also the idea of studying many methods that are not supported by published success rates is a major concern of mine. In 2-4 years when my other business responsibilities will be considerably less, I plan to challenge the better known homeopaths to publish their success rates. I will offer them to take part in an independent study to be completed by a reputable research/consulting firm to have their success rates determined. I am confident many of those considered to be the better homeopaths will not take part in this as if the truth were known I bet their success rate is much less then what people think it is.

On the other hand, if all of you who have been responding to my postings are curing 70-80% of all your chronic case patients within a reasonable time frame, then what I have had to say would be of no importance to you and I applaud you. On the other hand if you are treating many people, assuming it is not an incurable case, for 4-5-7 years, then maybe you should give this more consideration.

Again, I will post the most important questions one must learn to keep asking their patients.

QUESTIONS YOU WANT TO CONTINUOUSLY ASK ABOUT EACH SYMPTOM:

What is the worse thing about this for you? And why is this so bad for you?

How symptoms make them feel (quality of symptom) and

What symptoms make them do in their attempt to respond to the stress – the way they use energy to strain is what needs fixed – those are the symptoms that need to be addressed.

And how they get symptoms…

By asking these questions over and over you not only get more symptoms but how the symptoms impact the patient and how one symptom leads to another. This is how you find the deeper state and what needs fixed, and it will form a logical cycle showing the patients response to stress.

What is amazing is that once you know the method, not only can you often take a chronic case in 30-45 minutes and clearly understand the state they are in and what remedy is needed, but at some point if you continue to ask all the standard questions you can often predict what other remedies they will need and in what order, with reasonable certainty.

On the other hand, if I am unaware that there are many homeopaths curing the majority of their patients, I would certainly like to hear about it. I honestly believe that if homeopaths cannot come together and learn a more consistent approach, that the success rate of truly curing chronic illnesses will remain much lower then what most homeopaths want to believe. This would be a shame. As time permits I will aggressively pursue bringing the truth about homeopathy to the forefront. While we all know it has amazing healing powers, I think if we are all honest we know that without a proven and consistent method and a higher success rate, it’s growth and support will continue to struggle when in fact it should be the first course of treatment for the majority of people. Until more homeopaths success rates go up, not much will change. It is clear that if homeopaths were curing the majority of their patients that demand for homeopathy would be so high and there would be so much more positive publicity and financial support on a larger scale. Yet acupuncture for example which has proven to be effective for lower back pains and a few other ailments is 10 times more popular in the U.S., yet it is very limited in terms of what it can really cure and in sustaining cures.

We all know the problems with using double blind studies to show proof of homeopathy’s potential, so the only way it will grow and become more successful is if homeopaths can cure a higher percentage of people in a shorter period of time. Then, patients who have been fully cured will drive the growth of homeopathy.
It truly has the potential in our lifetime to become the first medicine of choice and gain the respect we all know it deserves, but we all have to get on the same page and that page has to show a huge success story in terms of a majority of patients being cured.

I use to think, before I studied Herscu’s method that maybe the 20+ people/friends who went to these other well known homeopaths were just difficult cases. After learning his method and while working under a physician who trained extensively under Andrea Saines, this physician had the courage to trust me and we actually cured some of these people with Herscu’s method and at the same time many went to Herscu on my reccomendation and as noted have been cured or are well on there way.

To me, the proof is in the pudding. Debates will go on and on and those that eventually make a strong effort to study what Herscu is doing will benefit greatly as will their patients. That is not to say some homeopaths have not been able to achieve a reasonable success rate after many years of practice, but if more people used Herscu’s method they would not have to wait to learn something that is readily available and will prove to be an invaluable method in years to come.

I would like to thank everyone for their comments regarding responses to my postings. I believe everything said regarding the organon, Herring, and all classical sources referenced are all true and very important to follow in order to be successful as Paul refers to them often, especially in the first 13 letters of the Herscu Letter. However, in having read 100’s of cycles of remedies and in understanding Pauls’s method of case taking and more importantly learning how to use it, has cut my case talking time in half and my success rate has doubled and yet to be honest I don't know near as much about homeopathy in general as any of you probably do.
That is probably the beauty of his method, you don't have to know everything about every remedy and every principal, you just follow the energy of the patients response to stress and use the method....simillimum!

Wishing all of you the best,

John Oljace

p.s. I think Paul speaks german! He is from Romania originally.