On the question: Cure, palliation, suppression.

I thought again over the above question:

>>Under the remedy-influence a Symptom disappears.
How do we know that the Symptom was cured ??<<

and came up with the following:

One has to see, if the symptom in question is a proving-symptom of the remedy applied.
If one can confirm, that the symptom in question is a provingsymptom of the remdy, then the symptom is cured according the simile law:

SIMILIA SIMLIBUS CURENTUR
Not to forget Par.:50: CURE BY SYMPTOM SIMILARITY!

If the symptom in question cannot be confirmed as a provingsymptom, then its mere disappearance cannot rectify, the assumption that this symptom is cured.

It can be just as well be suppressed, or palliated (=temporary suppression).

This has nothing to do with ‘’Hering’s law’’, as this is concerned with the progress of the complete disease.
‘’Hering’s law’’ has not been termed by Hering, and was as a ,,law’’first introduced by Kent into contemporary, may I say ‘’Kent’’ therapy. (just to be exact)
Hering formulated these rules from Swedenbourgian thinking. Only the third law, stating the direction of improvement as being backward in time, finds its origin in Hahnemann’s chronic diseases page 135)
>>The latest symptoms that have added to a chronic disease which has been left to itself (and thus has not been aggravated by medical mismanagement) are always the first to yield in an antipsoric treatment;<<
Hahnemann clearly attributes this to antipsoric treatment only.

May I express my astonishment about the knowledge of contemporary ‘’homeopaths’’,who instead of investigating into the matter call this a bogus question.
I am surprised, that nobody in their answers, has shown an understanding of the fundamental principal of homeopathy: Similia similibus curentur.

The significance of this knowledge is paramount in the second/ third prescribtion.
Is a symptom cured, then it will have no bearing for the follow up remedy.
Is a symptom suppressed,(palliated) it very well will form part of the next selection.

Hans Weitbrecht
Cure by symptom similarity!

__________________
cure by symptom similarity!<br /><a href="http://www.Boger-Boenninghausen.com/" target="_blank">www.Boger-Boenninghausen.com/</a>

Hans, like many other simple but indespensable truths, prehaps it has been overlooked.

I certainly find the magazines full of cases worked by contemporary methods very scary bedtime reading.

Yours,
Louise.

How then would you know if a less well-known remedy has cured, if there are precious few proving symptoms? Alot of remedies have very small symptom pictures. Symptom totality is not every symptom in the case - common symptoms to the disease will not be useful for choosing the remedy, but will still disappear under the action of the correct remedy. The peculiar symptoms will point to the remedy, it is not necessary to choose a remedy based on every symptom in the case.

__________________
David Kempson.<br />Dip.Homoeopathic Medicine.<br />Lecturer Australian College of Natural Therapies (Brisbane Campus)<br />Member AHA, AROH, HMA<br />Member Australian Homoeopathic Association. Member#0442.

Hans,

Please consider that some of us choose very carefully which posts will elicit our participation, and which ones will not. Often the decision to participate will rest on who poses the question on the BB--and their previously exposed intentions and behaviour on the BB.

Speaking for myself--this was the reason behind my decision NOT to participate in that particular debate.

I would expect many other homeopaths answered the question with silence for similar reasons.


I've learned that "Hering's Law" is not a concept applied only to homeopathy. The "direction of cure" concept we rely on as homeopaths is also understood and applied in some forms of Oriental or Chinese Medicine, which has been practiced for thousands of years. In fact, there is quite a bit of similarity in the understanding of disease in homeopathy and CMT, which makes sense to me as both come from a vitalist tradition in medicine.

Divina

__________________
...and deliverance has many faces<br />but grace<br />is an aquaintance of mine

Hi Divina,
I don't think Hans meant that Hering's Law is invalid.

This is what I got out of his post - and correct any misunderstandings, please Hans.

You are saying that if a symptom disappears in a given case, under a specific remedy, BUT, said-symptom was NOT recorded during the proving under such remedy - then one cannot assume that the symptom is a) cured according to Similia Similibus Curentur, and b) further 'curable' by said remedy according to Similia Similibus Curentur.

So if the [disappeared] symptom is in the provings - then the cure is according to Similia Similibus Curentur. And if not, then we can't call it 'cured'.

That makes sense to me actually. BUT, what about David's questions!!!!! That has occured to me many times - and I've often thought - 'wait, ask it later (keep on track with studies for now ....ahhhh, tangents!)'. But, then again - what comes to my mind - on the question that David posed:
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>How then would you know if a less well-known remedy has cured, if there are precious few proving symptoms? Alot of remedies have very small symptom pictures. <hr></blockquote>

So, we need to do more provings or re-provings (I can hear a groan from Divina about now ...I appreciate it takes heaps of time, effort, resources, etc.) to better understand those remedies(?). So, do you never use the 'less well-known' remedies, Hans? I ask because of the points David made.

Then you go on to say: Since the symptom disappeared under said remedy and since it was not listed in the provings under that remedy it must have been suppressed or palliated. And, you make the point that palliation equals temporary suppression (interesting - I hadn't heard it put that way before).

Couldn't it be - esp in the case of a less well-known remedy(!) that said symptom might appear if the remedy were proven again? Okay, I take your point that we must methodically call cure 'cure' ONLY according to what Hahnemann laid out regarding cure and Similia Similibus Curentur....so you're being pedantic . (Fair enough - as it is a slippery slope if we allow these laws to fade to the back of our minds.)

Then you go on to say that palliation and suppression have nothing to do with Hering's Law (??). How so? (e.g. wouldn't you use Hering's Law to manage an acute - esp a serious one?)

Then you go on to point out that Hering's Law is really for managing the whole case (the 'complete disease') - the totality of symptoms prescribed on(yes?).

I'm a bit fuzzy on what your point is about Hering and the influence of Swedenbourg? What is the problem there?? Please explain.

What if other symptoms improve (ones which you didn't prescribe on as part of the totality of the disease picture, but nevertheless were bothersome) which are NOT in the proving but the whole case is going according to the law of cure? This is where I am fuzzy - case-managment...the miasms cropping up....

Are you simply saying that those particular symptoms (in above paragraph) are simply not termed as cured under Similia Similibus Curentur?

But, what about many many clincal cases where symptoms have been painstakingly tracked/recorded (please don't ask me for an example...David?? maybe you could offer up a common one?)- but weren't in the provings (say - in one of the lesser well-known or well-proved remedies?????)? Is this information of no value?
Or has it a place of value - and if so, how do you think it should be utilised?

Divina, maybe this is elementary to you , but it was a good little exercise for me to think about. And your participation helps too! I didn't get the impression Hans had any sinister intentions . Egads, am I missing something here?

Right...back to this assignment I was supposed to finish up today (almost there )......

Lisa

__________________
"The significance of a fact is measured by the capacity of the observer."
Carroll Dunham

Hi Lisa, and Hans,

I'm very mystified as to how anyone would think I'd be against provings.

I absolutely agree that more provings--even of often proved remedies--need to be done. I personally think we could get a lot more use out of remedies we know well and not so well by doing provings.

We definitely need several provings on remedies like carcinosin, for example.

But we could stand to know a heck of a lot more about allium cepa, too! Surely we could treat way more patients if we knew more about this substance, among many other "small" remedies. On top of that, many substances for which we have proving info were never actually proven in potency. All of those substances need to be reexamined and beefed up with the very necessary proving information of different potencies as opposed to crude substances.

Having taken part in a number of full-protocol provings myself, I'm the first person to promote their importance. This generation of homeopaths has a great deal to contribute to homeopathy in every area--provings is one of the major areas which would benefit from them. Imagine how much could be done and shared with a tool like the internet...

My other big horn to blow is about somehow enhancing education on a mass scale--and doing the "anti-defamation" work that is SO necessary. You know--every time the media calls a "quack" a homeopath when they clearly are not (these are deliberate attempts to make homeopaths look dangerous through misinformation), I'd like to see an organized response to that. Not just one or two letters from a couple of homeopaths--but a MASSIVE response--lots of letters, or letters signed by many people, with copies CCd to the "journalists", their editors, and their sponsors. Just so advertisers get a sense of how big our economic power is--and how shoddy the journalist and newspaper are in misrepresenting us.

But that's another thing all together, and I'm rambling.

Now--for Hering's Law of Cure--I'm not doubting it at all. Merely illustrating that it has been articulated before and is nothing new and quite reliable. There are homeopaths who say it doesn't always hold true--but I think its an excellent guidepost. I never understood that anyone questioned its validity in this thread.

Now--as for sinister intentions:

I was trying to be discreet. But it's only being misleading. So I will have to be blunt.

I was responding to Hans' statement that many homeopaths just ignored the question.

What I meant to say in response is that I don't participate on threads created by Dr. Mas and his "alter egos".
Period. If I recall correctly, the question was "raised" by Dr. Mas or Dr. Cartoon or "whatever" that writes the same and comports himself the same way.

I'm sure others avoid doing so too. Even if the questions are good ones, I won't participate because I don't respect Dr. Mas (and his alter egos') methods of creating dialogue, his manner of discourse, or his purported knowledge. I try to ensure that, by not participating, his threads will disappear, even if he usually is the only person posting on them--back and forth, to himself, using various names for himself. I believe that, left to his own devices, he'll get bored when no one responds and just stop posting here.

Hope that clears things up.

Divina

[ 12 November 2001: Message edited by: Divina ]</p>

__________________
...and deliverance has many faces<br />but grace<br />is an aquaintance of mine

Hi Divina, I didn't mean to infer or imply you weren't interested in provings! Quite the opposite!!!!!

Thanks for the clarification on the rest ...wasn't sure what you meant the first time round, now I certainly do!

Off to bed now (truly sleeping , lol)...hence the quick reply.
Lisa

__________________
"The significance of a fact is measured by the capacity of the observer."
Carroll Dunham

Hallo to all
Amazing how many question are rissen by this post.
I won’t be able to answer them all, and if the one or other stays open, I might come back to it some other time.
David JK wrote about:
,,less well known remedies’’.
I hope I don’t do you wrong to say, that the knowledge of the remedy and the sources for it are the problem of the practitioner. If I feel, this remedy is not well known to me, I read it up in the provings.
Otherwise, what I said in my first post, applies equally to all remedies.
&gt;&gt;How then would you know if a less well-known remedy has cured, if there are precious few proving symptoms?&lt;&lt;
basically, I don't!
I see the problem, and just assuming that it did cure, because a symptom disappeared is not good enough.
I have this problem particularly with the Nosodes, where some of them actually never were proven homoeopathically.
You also wrote:
&gt;&gt;it is not necessary to choose a remedy based on every symptom in the case.&lt;&lt;
do you mean with case: case of disease, then I disagree.
Do you mean with case: the person entirely, then I agree.

A bit more of the ‘’Herings laws’’
The law only makes sense, if we assume a hierarchic structure being the basis of man.
We also have to change from treating diseases defined by their totality of symptoms to treating the man beeing diseased, which is impossible according to the Organon, where Hahnemann states, that up to 3 diseases can be present in one person simultaneously. (par.: 40 footnote)
Swedenbourg in his writings created this model, which has its counterpart in Virthoulkases’s pyramid model.
The first and second ‘’law’’ reflect this model, by stating that your remedyaction is curative, if the symptoms disappear 1) FROM HEAD TO TOE, or from (2) INSIDE OUT.

Hahnemann in his works did not adopt this hierarchic model and instead stuck with his own observations, which showed him that the liveforce knows no hierarchy in affecting the man. Otherwise par.212 would make no sense.
Operating with herings law could lead one very well astray in assessing the progress after a remedy was given.
Take for example a skin-problem which has started at the torso and during its course has spread to the extremities. Your remedy effects the following: Skin at torso&lt;, limbs slightly better. Hering 3 says: backward in time is curative, Hering 1 says: from head to toe is curative. Now it’s contradicting itself.
Another one is this: All symptoms disappear in one go. ( happens quite often, if remedy is well chosen in acute and semi-acute cases.)
No problem with the simile law: just go and confirm!

Lisa read exactly what I wrote:
&gt;&gt;It CAN be just as well be suppressed, or palliated (=temporary suppression).&lt;&lt;
I did not write: it is, it must be,
I saw symptoms disappear by themselves.
Take for instant chickenpox, the skin-eruptions run their cause and disappear in a very defined way.
Or problems surrounding the periods:
most of them disappear by themselves after the period is over and return in a months time.
Lisa, you were asking of the clinical symptoms. I take it that you mean the symptoms which disappeared during the action of a remedy and which were no provingsymptoms. Answer: see my first post.

Hans Weitbrecht
Cure by symptom similarity!

__________________
cure by symptom similarity!<br /><a href="http://www.Boger-Boenninghausen.com/" target="_blank">www.Boger-Boenninghausen.com/</a>

Is there any practical example from the nature to demonstrate this hering law to the student

__________________
Best regards<br />sozo