Hi Luise

I had a thought on this, as admit haven't seriously evaluated tha claims since learning them whilst studying - and blindly accepting things is just not good enough for me so thanks for posing the problem.

In the example you gave my thoughts are this -

if you were presented with a patient with eczema, and took a case history and the asthma was mentioned, and you were aware of the relaitonship between asthma and the skin- then you would enquire as to how the asthma was treated. If this treatment for the asthma had been suppressive (and I only use this term because of the discussion as am still evaluating this concept) and it was after this that the eczema manifested, then it would be safe to say that the eczema you were presented with was really the manifestation of the suppressed asthma. In that case, you would not treat the eczema, but the suppressed asthma - in theory that is. By treating the eczema, you are either going to suppress it, (by prescribing in an incorrect way by some standards) or clear it enough to get back to the original problem, the asthma.

I don't think that Hering's law would apply to this situation - as the cure is for the original malady, not its manifestation from suppression.

Now, with the asthma there and the eczema gone, the use of Hering's Law/rule of thumb can be then applied I guess. ie. the eczema cannot be thought of as part of the cure as it was falsly created by suppressing the asthma. It was not a 'real' disease in that sense.

With regard to eczema, I remember being taught that often when eczema is treated, mental/emotional symptoms can be exacerbated. It was then suggested to us as students that in this case, it is probably better to leave the eczema as the better of two problems (up to the patient though).

I have also read, that treating eczema suppressively, does not always lead to respiratory tract problems, but can manifest in other ways at deeper levels than the skin. Will try to find this source to give more detail.

Just some thoughts

Best

Robyn