You might want to read the following article on Herings Rule.
http://www.homeopathy.ca/articles/heriing_law.html

While your enthusiasm is refreshing, it would bolster your own knowledge if you were to study the Organon for yourself. Not everyone is a good teacher. And, not everyone understands everything well enough about a subject to teach it.
Very interesting topic - thanks for posting about it!

Yes it would bolster all our knowledge if we all consistantly studied the Organon, Hahnemann's journals, and the cases of homoeopathy's leading prescribers, as well as our own, to get a more rounded out picture of the vast potential of our healing modality. Instead of simply reacting to key phrases like "speculation" or "literal" or "Hering's Law of Cure" (which incidently everyone knows is not a law but rather an expanded example of Hahnemann's Direction of Cure), or "Swedenborgian influence" we could IMO take the opportunity to listen to what each speaker has to offer. It almost always doesn't perfectly suit our needs. For instance, if your practice is based 80% or higher on Scholten methods and you go to a Herscu seminar looking for new and innovative perceptions on 'themes', you are bound to be disappointed. I repeatedly tried to watch an Andre Saine video presentation of a seminar and couldn't stay awake for more than the first 20 minutes - which is not something I'm proud of and will seek to rectify once the librarian forgets me as the person who kept the videos out well past their return date. Allen walked out on a speech given by Kent because he had to catch a bus and was disgruntled by what Kent had to say, I left a Jeremy Sherr seminar early because his speaking style bored me shitless and it was a long, long day. This is NOT to say that I think his work is lacking. Please folks, let's give each other and ourselves a bit of breathing space to investigate what is on offer.

In case you misunderstood the aim of my post, I concur with you Chris. I also think we need to study the Organon for ourselves, and alarm bells go off for me when someone says they haven't even read it much less studied it for themselves. I do sympathise since it's not easy-reading (easier to drive my jag and type posts occasionally, baby ). That's all I meant. No offence intended.

PS
Does everyone know this? I didn't until recently, so I felt it was important to post in case someone else hadn't seen it. Maybe I'm the last one to find this out :razz: .

No offence taken Austin, at all. There is obviously a disproportionate number of qualified practitioners and students who have never read the Organon, or Chronic Diseases for themselves and who rely on passages quoted by others. And there are unpublished works of Hahnemann that have never even been viewed by the majority, let alone studied or translated into English.

Hahnemann's Direction of Cure is referred to in Chronic Diseases.
Kent's adaptation of it is what we are generally taught in our colleges.
Most of everything we are taught nowadays is a neo-Kentian version of homoeopathic principles.

Hahnemann may be turning over in his grave, but I'm sure James Kent is too.
Hoooeee, controversial!

dear john and anyone interested,
in the chronic diseases, p135 of the jain edition, hahnemann wrote that

'the latest symptoms that have been added to a chronic disease which has been left to itself ...are always the first to yield in an antipsoric treatment; but the oldest ailments and those which have been most constant and unchanged , among which are the constant local ailments, are the last to give way...'

the red herring's law is more than an 'extension' of that.

there is nothing in the chronic diseases nor the organon about discovering which is the 'deepest' part of the case. and footnote to organon par 1 is apt.

hahnemann knew the remedies well and yet never, to my knowledge, commented that the mental symptoms were to be thematically tied to the physicals, as is the tendency of modern practitioners. i believe this is because it introduces an unneccessary level of interpretation between proving data and the case at hand.

all the schools think they are superior, and all practitioners, due to the nature of homoeopathy, have some splendid results.
each time a new method comes up, it needs to be measured against the method of hahnemann.
it sounds to me as if what herscu is doing is a lot nearer to that than 95% of practitioners, including most of the other famous ones, but still, it appears that his method introduces unnecessary material.
if you obtain a copy of boenninghausen's characteristics materia medica [inexpensive] you will probably find that herscu takes a lot of his most practical material from that, judging by the examples you gave of remedy 'segments.'
to be at the cutting edge, you need to be conversant in german it's true.

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.

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

Well I would suggest what really matters is that as homoeopaths we individually UNDERSTAND what we are doing, what the principles are that we are applying, and what their ultimate consequences are.

Dear Chris:

Your response only addressed one statement I made out of many. I guess I can only conclude that nothing I had to say was of interest to you as you must be curing the majority of your chronic cases which is great. I am very interested in hearing success rates of many homeopaths and what method they use to find out who has the best method of case taking and analysis, which to me can only be based on their success rate. Again, the proof is always in the pudding. I also made it clear it is important to UNDERSTAND the principals but did note in the end as I beleive you agreed, curing patients is the ultimate desired consequence.

My only interest in all of this is to find if in fact Herscu, or whom ever, clearly has a better understanding of the principals in application and a success rate to back it up as many people are not getting results close to Herscu. If I can find more people who are highly successful compared to others and look at their methods and eventually publish some of my findings, it may help practitioners who struggle much more than they should. Especially some that are being poorly trained by people who are considered to be some of the best homeopaths. This concerns me greatly and should concern everyone who has an interst in the truth instead of their own agenda.

sincerely,

John Oljace

It occurs to me that asking questions such as above could sometimes lead a person to self-understanding which could lead to self-healing. You know, something like an emotional eureka experience.