Hi all,

I have re-named the thread because my question really had nothing to do with Dr. V. I just happened to think of it while I was reading the site of the workshop.

My question is about "Hering's Law" pure and simple.

I do not believe in it. (But am open-minded).

The main reason I do not believe in it is that it can easily lead to "contradiction in itself". And my question was about this "contradiction in itself"

The first example was answered by JROZ. I accept his interpretation.

The second was not answered. It was (phrased a little differently):

You are treating a patient for eczema (or with eczema - does not matter for the purpose of this discussion)

The eczema gets better/goes away but he gets asthma. You know or he tells you then that he used to have asthma before his eczema.

So - how do you interprete this as to Hering's Law?


Actually, the gravity or either state is not covered by this law - just the direction. This would be a different aspect of evaluation, not acording to Hering's Law.

I am interested in the contradiction:

By 2 criteria (from inside out - from the least important to the less important) it would be the wrong direction, by the criteria of "reversal in time" it would be the right direction.

There are other things that make me think that Hering's Law is of little practical value. One thing is new: Dr. V's law is not Hering's (it may be better) - Hering knew nothing about ektoderm etc. It is not based on such kinds of considerations.

So it seems that Dr. V. thinks it needs modification or a downright different "law" to replace it.

I tend to agree - but as I said, I am open to change my mind.

Regards

Luise

I'll try another shot at this one if I may......

First I have always been thaught that Hering's "law" is not a law but a rule meaning that it applies in general but not always, whereas a law should be applicable at all times.

Then the rule is linear, in your example, from outside in = bad, but reversal in time = good. Admittedly this is a contradiction of sort if you leave it at that; to evaluate whether you go in the right direction you must as usual look at the whole patient: now that the asthma is back, is the patient as an entity better, in which case the situation is ameliorated and you are in the right direction, or is he worse, then you are on the wrong track.

Hering's law, IMO, is a guideline, a rule of the thumb, that helps evaluate the progress of the patient but does not have to be followed blindly at all time................but then I am known to love breaking the rules..........


Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".

dear homeolist,

luise kunkle wrote:-
My question is about "Hering's Law" pure and simple. I do not believe in it. (But am open-minded).

dr manish writes:
that's the basic problem. a science has nothing to do with beliefs. it is all about facts. a medical science is all about facts and their clinical application. the results speak for themselves (whether the mind is open or closed !)

I like something that dr prafull vijayakar often quotes - " the eyes do not see what the mind does not perceive"

hering's law is very important for the assessment of the progress of cure and it also clearly, scientifically and clinically shows whether the remedy selection was perfect or not.

the questions of single remedy vs polypharmacy as best answered by a very clear understanding of the hering's laws and seeing it actually in a clinical setting. no beliefs work here.

luise wrote:-
The main reason I do not believe in it is that it can easily lead to "contradiction in itself". And my question was about this "contradiction in itself"

dr manish writes:-
dear luise, you are free to believe in anything you want. but, please do not expect others to think or practice as you suggest. there are many students on this list who do not write posts, they simply read what we write. I would not like them to get confused. all of them must know the importance of Hering's law.

there is absolutely no contradiction here. dr vijayakar's work is fabulous because he himself raises the question of the apparent contradictions in the hering's laws and answers them in deep detail. it seems that you have not read dr vijayakar's work at all.

I suggest that you read his book on suppressions and also the verbatim of his workshop. read both books completely before commenting. dr v raises the question of contradictions and clearly explains with clinical cases.

luise wrote:-
You are treating a patient for eczema (or with eczema - does not matter for the purpose of this discussion)The eczema gets better/goes away but he gets asthma. You know or he tells you then that he used to have asthma before his eczema.So - how do you interprete this as to Hering's Law?

dr manish writes:-
is this some case you are treating or just a conjecture ? if this is a real case - post full particulars and also mention the remedy given. do give details of the follow ups. I will comment of the case, in light of the hering's law. no imaginary examples, please. otherwise read dr v's books - he makes it very clear.

luise wrote:-
Actually, the gravity or either state is not covered by this law - just the direction. This would be a different aspect of evaluation, not acording to Hering's Law.

dr manish writes:-
it's all your personal views.

luise wrote:-
By 2 criteria (from inside out - from the least important to the less important) it would be the wrong direction, by the criteria of "reversal in time" it would be the right direction. There are other things that make me think that Hering's Law is of little practical value. One thing is new: Dr. V's law is not Hering's (it may be better) - Hering knew nothing about ektoderm etc. It is not based on such kinds of considerations. So it seems that Dr. V. thinks it needs modification or a downright different "law" to replace it.

dr manish writes:-
please do not confuse others. you have clearly not read dr v's works at all. it is 'ectoderm' and not ektoderm.

for those interestested in the historical details of the hering's law - it may be interesting to note what hahnemann had to say about these matters. I think it is page 30 of Chronic diseases, bjain (I am quoting page number from memory - hope I am not wrong). hahnemann refers to the time line.

hering codified it into laws.

dr vijayakar's contribution is in showing the scientific basis of these laws. he draws heavily from embryology and for the first time explains in very clear terms what is meant by "more important organ" and "less important organ".
a clear undertstanding of this will ensure that all doubts about contradictions" and all that end completely.

a proper understanding of
a) "more important organ" and "less important organ" in light of embryology
b) the timeline of disease / cure
is vital to understanding hering's laws.

luis wrote:-
Hering knew nothing about ektoderm etc. It is not based on such kinds of considerations.

dr manish writes:-
eKtoderm or no eKtoderm ! - hering was right. hering based his laws on his deep clinical experience. no doubt the sciences of immunology, genetics and embryology are there and explain these laws very well but utlimately they are seen clinically. so someone with good clinical observation and deep knoweledge of homeopathy (like hering) saw the hering's laws. it proves the value of actual clinical work over theories / beliefs / historical discussions.

we may or may not agree with dr v's terminologies but ultimately what matters is the clinical work and how patients get cured.

a colleague had objected to my mentioning that homeopathy is genetic medicine. we may have our own fancy ideas about vital force etc etc and take them as some airy - fairy - wispy stuff.. now even if the remedies work at some deeeeeeeeeep deep level (mystical stuff !!!) it is quite obvious that they do work at the genetic level. so homeopathy is definitely a genetic medicine and if it is more than that - I have no objections.

I like a language of clarity and no mystical stuff.

Regards

dr manish agarwala

Hi JROZ,

Thanks.

Yes, I can accept it as a "rule of thumb".

Actually the reason that it came back strongly into my mind recently is that several times, by various posters, I heard something like:

"the cure has to proceed by Hering's Law.

This is really what I doubt.

Regards

Luise

Hi Manish,

> dr manish writes:
> that's the basic problem. a science has nothing to do with beliefs.

This may be your *belief* - I do not share it. But this is OT.


> it is all about facts. a medical science is all about facts

and their clinical application. the results speak for themselves (whether the mind is open or closed !)

> I like something that dr prafull vijayakar often quotes - " the eyes do not see what the mind does not perceive"

He is right. First there is in your mind a filter of what to perceive from the masses of facts it is always confronted by, after that it has to decide what it considers a fact, - there we may be at "perception" level. After that it has to
interprete that " fact" - and this interpretation one may also call a belief.


> hering's law is very important for the assessment of the progress of cure and it also clearly, scientifically and clinically shows whether the remedy selection was perfect or not.

It is a rule of thumb.


> the questions of single remedy vs polypharmacy as best answered by a very clear understanding of hering's laws and seeing it actually in a clinical setting. no beliefs work here.

So far in clinical studies polypharmacy has come out on top.


> luise wrote:-
> The main reason I do not believe in it is that it can easily lead to "contradiction in itself". And my question was about this "contradiction in itself" dr manish writes:- dear luise, you are free to believe in anything you want. but, please do not expect others to think or practice as you suggest.

Dear Manish - please do not try to tell me what I may post and what not. Or rather - go ahead if you wish. I won`t pay any attention, anyway.

I have been on this (and other lists) for a long time off and on. Many other posters have tried to shut me up, to no avail.

Only the list manager has this option - and if s/he did I'd get off the list without fuss. For others it is a waste of time.

> there are many students on this list who do not write posts, they simply read what we write. I would not like them to get confused. all of them must know the importance of hering's law.

This is a discussion list, not a list for teaching one or the other kind of homeopathic "school". Anyone, student or not, who does not want to get confused had better just not read my posts - they are so easy to delete.

Whenever, off and on, I said "tiao - bye for now" before getting off a list there were many people, students and others, who were very sorry and said they had enjoyed hearing different points of view and that they had learned by them. It's for those people I write.

You are Indian, I take it. In India there has always been great tolerance to diverging and opposite points of view. In Europe that has been different. All through the ages books have been burned, their authors sometimes being on top of the pyre. One of those times, in Germany, I have still experienced. If I had been somewhat older I might have been one of the resulting cinders.

At those times students were exposed only to one view "in order not to get confused". I very much doubt that it did them any good.


> there is absolutely no contradiction here. dr vijayakar's work is fabulous

quite possibly. So is Sankaran's, Sehgal`s, Vithoulkas', Robin Murphy's, Dr Voegeli's, Dr Eichelberger's, Julian's, Elizyaga's......, probably Bannerji's, Burnett's.........

Once they agree among themselves I may be ready to take on their opinion. Until such time I prefer to think for myself.

> because he himself raises the question of the apparent contradictions in the hering's laws and answers them in deep detail. it seems that you have not read dr vijayakar's work at all.
>
No. And since he seems to be a guru rather than a person who may err, I'll read them as part of my major: "Religious Studies".


> I suggest that you read his book on suppressions and also the verbatim of his workshop. read both books completely before commenting.

I did not comment on his books - how could I? I had learned about Hering`s laws before Dr. V. ever wrote any books.

> dr v raises the question of contradictions and clearly explains with clinical cases.

Don't the other authors also have clinical cases to back up their views?


> luise wrote:- You are treating a patient for eczema (or with eczema - does not matter for the purpose of this discussion)The eczema gets better/goes away but he gets asthma. You know or he tells you then that he used to have asthma before his eczema.So - how do you interprete this as to Hering's Law?

> dr manish writes:- is this some case you are treating or just a conjecture ?

It is theory - to counter another theory: which is Hering's law.


> if this is a real case - post full particulars and also mention the remedy given. do give details of the follow ups. I will comment of the case, in light of the hering's law. no imaginary examples, please. otherwise read dr v's books - he makes it very clear.

<sigh> If you assert that it is not possible that asthma is followed by a skin eruption I can find plenty of evidence that this happens quite often.

If it does happen, Hering's law is not valid as a "Law", for: if the symptoms *cannot* go back to the asthma with treatment, "the reversal in time" is not valid (and this part (only) goes back to Hahnemann). If the skin eruption *can* go back to asthma, the law of "from the inside out" cannot be right. So the 5 parts of the rule cannot be right together.

If there is a "may be" involvolved, that is different. Perhaps Dr. V. has added that "may-be" and if he did so he modified Hering's Law for the better. This law then should be called "Dr. V's law" giving merit where merit is due.

> luise wrote:-
> Actually, the gravity or either state is not covered by this law - just the direction. This would be a different aspect of evaluation, not acording to Hering's Law.

> dr manish writes:- it's all your personal views.

Indeed - but well backed-up.

Why don't you also back up your own personal views.

If you say I should read Dr. V's books instead, I'll give you an equal amount of books to read, which back up my side. Even though many of the books that helped shape my opinions never got translated into English - I think I can find some English ones for this purpose too.


> luise wrote:-
> By 2 criteria (from inside out - from the least important to the less important) it would be the wrong direction, by the criteria of "reversal in time" it would be the right direction. There are other things that make me think that Hering's Law is of little practical value. One thing is new: Dr. V's law is not Hering's (it may be better) - Hering knew nothing about ektoderm etc. It is not based on such kinds of considerations.
> So it seems that Dr. V. thinks it needs modification or a downright different "law" to replace it.

> dr manish writes:-
> please do not confuse others. you have clearly not read dr v's works at all. it is 'ectoderm' and not ektoderm.

Will you allow for different spellings in different languages?


> for those interestested in the historical details of the hering's law - it may be interesting to note what hahnemann had to say about these matters. I think it is page 30 of Chronic diseases, bjain (I am quoting page number from memory - hope I am not wrong). hahnemann refers to the time line.

Indeed - the "reversal in time" or as you call it "the time line" part of the "law" goes back to Hahnemann. The other parts do not.


> hering codified it into laws.

This was Hering's own contribution - very properly also called by his name. Hahnemann never talked about the rest (if I am wrong, refer me to the aphors or the pages in the CD.)


> dr vijayakar's contribution is in showing the scientific basis of these laws. he draws heavily from embryology and for the first time explains in very clear terms what is meant by "more important organ" and "less important organ". a clear undertstanding of this will ensure that all doubts about "contradictions" and all that end completely.

Do you mean he says that the skin is a more important organ than the lungs?


> a proper understanding of a) "more important organ" and "less important organ" in light of embryology

That is not what Hering can have meant because he did not know embryology. Perhaps the 2 interpretations coincide, however.


> b) the timeline of disease / cure is vital to understanding hering's laws.

> luis wrote:-
> Hering knew nothing about ektoderm etc. It is not based on such kinds of considerations.

> dr manish writes:- eKtoderm or no eKtoderm ! - hering was right. hering based his laws on his deep clinical experience.

So did Hahnemann- and he mentioned nothing but the timeline

> no doubt the sciences of immunology, genetics and embryology are there and explain these laws very well but utlimately they are seen clinically. so someone with good clinical observation and deep knoweledge of homeopathy (like hering) saw the hering's laws. it proves the value of actual clinical work over theories / beliefs / historical discussions.

I should very much like to see actual clinical work outside of that I did myself in my own clinic. I think this is invaluable and the great deficit of homeopathy in the west is that internships for this purpose are not available unless you have a lot of money. I hope that those students who have that kind of money avail themselves of the internships offered by Shaw and Bannerji and perhaps others before they start their own practical work. The others have to rely on what they find out by themselves in their individual clinics.

But certainly you cannot mean that we should do (or could do) clinical work on a discussion list.

Sure, people can post cases - and do. Which is fine, I wish there were more.

But surely such a list should not be restricted to that??? Why on earth should we not also discuss homeopathic theory and historical issues? The list is not all that busy any longer that it gets overcrowded thereby.

And the readers can pick and choose.

Regards

Luise

Hi Luise,

I don't recall anyone saying "the cure has to proceed by Hering's Law", but what I *do* remember reading numerous times was that, because it did not*
go by Hering's Rule-of-Thumb :-) , the case was taken to *not* be moving toward cure. Those are *different* statements. But again, if you were to find the person feeling very much better--and find that situation lasting over time--despite the contrary-looking change in symptoms, then you would have reason indeed to think you were seeing an exception. But IME that is not usually the case.

Shannon

http://www.homeopathy.ca/articles/heriing_law.html

Hering's Law: Law, Rule or Dogma?
by Dr. André Saine

Presented at the Second Annual Session of the Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians in Seattle, Washington, April 16-17, 1988.

Introduction
In homeopathy today, Hering's law is widely recognized as the second law of cure, the first law of cure being similia similibus curantur, or like cures like. Hering's law pertains to the direction in which the symptoms of the patient will disappear during a cure under homeopathic treatment.

In his second lecture on homeopathic philosophy given in 1900 to the Post-Graduate School of Homœopathics, Kent said:

"The cure must proceed from centre to circumference. From centre to circumference is from above downward, from within outwards, from more important to less important organs, from the head to the hands and feet.


MORE at webpage

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise My question is about "Hering's Law" pure and simple.

As Dr. Joe wrote-- they are not "laws" but guidelines. I think that Andre Saine, on his web-site, has an article that quotes all the stuff by Hering as he formulated his ideas. They were only called "Hering's Law" by KENT.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise The main reason I do not believe in it is that it can easily lead to "contradiction in itself". And my question was about this "contradiction in itself"

The BIG one has to do with the *reverse* order happening.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise The eczema gets better/goes away but he gets asthma. You know or hetells you then that he used to have asthma before his eczema. So - how do you interprete this as to Hering's Law?

A reverse order.

A surface manifestation going, being followed by an emotional worsening is NOT necessarily a wrong direction. If this is tracked on the "3 cone" model that GV sets up in his book, the direction of cure can be a positive one.

THey are ONLY guideline-- which should be looked at.
AND... the folks in Chinese medicine have known about them for longer than Hering did!

JW

Hi Luise,

Hering's law and Kent's twelve observations are effective tools to asses the progress of case .Hering's law or guide I belived it and belive it also now ,because it worked .In every curable case symptoms follow Hering's law .This is my experience.

I agree many cases improve with out following Hering's law ,but they are all PALLIATION.
Majority of case what we Homoeopaths get are mixed cases.Many times cure it self is not possible.
Ur case of eczema become OK and Asthama comming up is suppression .What I have seen in my practice ,If person had earlier Asthama ,and he is cured of it ,now he is suffering with Eczema and U treat him as whole ,Eczema only gets aggravated then gets cured,asthama never comes back.
It is number of times seen if Eczema is treated but not INDIVIDUAL as whole it happens what you have said .It is not cure ,it is suppression.
"Even when you treat the person as whole ,still eczema goes and Asthama comes ,Asthama goes and Eczema comes ,this condition belongs to" alternating diseases of H'n."

Hering's Law has no contradiction.It all depends on how we look at it.There are number of cases where Hering's laws prove it self as LAW.
It requires--- We have to prescribe to individual who is suffering ,NOT to disease by name.
I can quote number of examples ( like many others) where Real cure takes place as per Hering's Law .But in majority cases it does not happen because case in hand is not curable or I have not prescribed to person as whole(cause may be any thing) .

Dr V try to convince reg Hering's law in his own way .As He says ,he is convinced him self with his own clinical experience.His books are worth reading as He was one who didnot practice as per HN earlier and realised his defect and came back to Hn and with high rate of success.

With Good Wishes

Ramachandra,
Hyderabad,INDIA