otherhealth.com - View Single Post

Hans Weitbrecht · #**106** (**permalink**) 7th October 2002, 09:23 PM

Dear John
As you present it, it seems that Paul Herscu takes the complete disease-history and places his first prescription on symptoms of earlier diseases. I took this from:
>>I also treated a womed on anti-depresents and she needed
Anacardium but was also a nymphomaniac and then needed Plat. and she also was very vulnerable and insecure and over sensitive and needed Puls. In this case the first 2 remedies were predictable almost form day one and based on the persons childhood that lead them to a Plat. state Puls was a consideration form early on as a future potential remedy.<<

so- the first prescription is NOT on the present symptoms, but on an ASSUMPTION, that there is a previous incident creating and keeping up the momentary diseases-picture, and that this ,,state’’ is present even though there are no symptoms relating to it presently ailing which are seen or experienced.

Following Paul’s idea expressed by John over various posts, one could argue, that everyone needs Aconite and Arnica in every case as first remedies, because we all came through this traumatic frightening experience called birth into this world and got bruised, and from then on were prone to disease of various kinds. So--the underlying state of today’s suffering, expressed in disease, is this birth-trauma and nothing else. Unless this is removed, it is impossible to cure what is the result of it. So everyone who prescribes on the symptom-picture presented today is merely suppressing, as the deeper state remains uncured. This deeper state cannot be seen. It can only be reasoned by looking at the live-history of the patient.
And of course—I can present thousands of cases supporting my assumptions. Who would want to argue, that the reason for all our suffering is, that we were born!

Sounds convincing?
But following conclusions, which are based on assumptions leads inevitably away from reality into the kingdom of shadows. Adopting set procedures based on assumptions leads to remedy-selections, which can easily mess up cases by giving remedies, which have nothing to do with the symptom-picture now present.
Coming back to the example:
You gave:

>>Aconite 200c resolved this issue but wihtin 10 days the violent behavior at school and with family memebers and many other Stram.symptoms became stronger and it was given to complete the case.<<

If this former state which does not show itself by the present symptoms is treated with Acon, how do you know, that Acon has removed it?

How can Acon remove something which is not there?

For a moment I want to follow your assumption, that this deeper state is the cause of today’s suffering and ask the following questions:

If this deeper state is the cause of the present suffering, how comes, that despite ‘’removal’’ of it by aconite, the present state persists?

How comes that after removing the cause of the present suffering by a remedy, the present sufferings increase?

Isn’t it that way, that, when the cause of the existence is removed, the NOW existing thing disappears?

Example: If I plug out the telly, the picture on the screen disappears.

How comes, that the practitioner reporting to have done this and seen the results, sees the application of Acon and the resulting worsening as a success?

Résumé:
Paul’s method differs from Hahnemann’s in the following way:
Paul gives the first remedy on the earlier indications derived from the history and then medicates along the history of disease arriving with the last remedy at the present disease.
Hahnemann starts always with what is present now, gives the remedy for the current disease-picture and follows the case up, by prescribing anew on the then present disease-picture. Boenninghausen followed the exact same method.

As john seems to be impressed by statistics --here they are for him:
The 129 Journals of Boenninghausen, which survived from an overall of 214,--some journals containing more then 500 patient histories each--, bear witness to the method pursued by Hahnemann and Boenninghausen. You can add the lot of Hahnemann’s later cases to it, even though they make only a small percentage of the cured cases by Boenninghausen. You can convince yourself if you want. Boenninghausen’s journals are accessible to the public. In that light—what are the 1000 cases you claim Paul has cured?