Julian Jonas on Homeopathy

[Guest guest]

by Julian Jonas

 

The Law of Cure

PART I

 

I venture to guess that every professional homeopath

in this country has moments when it feels like he or

she is a total knuckle head for pursuing such a

career. Nothing really comes easy.

 

To begin with, although things have improved over the

last decade or so, it is hard to find adequate

schooling. Unless one is willing to go abroad, there

are no real brick and mortar schools like there are

for co nventional medicine, chiropractic, acupuncture,

osteopathy or naturopathy. Mostly, there are programs

that meet for a weekend monthly, correspondence

courses and periodic seminars given by renowned

practitioners.

 

On top of that, opportunities for clinical training or

internship are meager at best. Apprenticeships are

mostly a quaint relic of the past. So, one learns by

doing - by practicing. Thinking back to the early days

of my practice, I am somewhat taken aback at my own

chutzpah (a Yiddish term for courage bordering on

arrogance). And, it leads to twinges of regret: if

only I could have known then what I know now when I

was treating So-and-So... But how else was one to

learn?

 

From a different perspective, public recognition of

homeopathy is still very low. Most people have never

heard of word, and a large percentage of people who

are somewhat familiar with the it, in the end actually

don’t know what it means. Understanding and

collegiality with the medical community - even within

the non-conventional medical community - is uncommon.

 

Financial viability is precarious. Adequate

compensation for the great deal of time spent in

consultation with and subsequent analysis of each

patient is not always forthcoming. And, without much

visibility and absent insurance reimbursement, it is a

challenge for the fledging practitioner to make a go

of it. Look around most homeopathic conferences or

gatherings, and you will see a large percentage of

people who don’t make their living at it. They are

there because they an are enamored of it. Some aspire

to be professional, some don’t.

 

It seems that even in India, where homeopathy is

officially sanctioned and supported, where a highly

developed homeopathic educational system and

homeopathic hospitals are in place, it is not an easy

path to become a practicing homeopath. A revelatory

conversation I had with an Indian colleague impressed

on me the fact that at least half of the students at

the homeopathic colleges don’t bother to enter into

clinical practice. And of those that do, the vast

majority take advantage of the wide scope of their

homeopathic license to practice conventional medicine!

 

 

On asking why this is the case, his reply was

succinct: homeopathy is hard. What kind of person, he

wanted to know, would forego the economic rewards and

intellectual ease of dispensing antibiotics and a few

other medications at a brisk pace for the the demands

of homeopathic practice where we sit in consultation

for hours in order to hone in on the single most

suitable remedy or to properly manage our cases?

 

A point well taken. In the end, practicing homeopathy

is a labor of love. To be a working homeopath, that

is, to be able to help people and to be economically

self-sufficient requires high doses of commitment and

persistence equivalent to the intellectual curiosity

and empathy that set you on the road in the first

place... Another, necessary attribute is a tolerance

for failure.

 

Homeopathy is also hard because homeopaths understand

that there is a uniqueness to each person that demands

our fullest attention. No two people, no two cases are

fully alike. And our treatments reflect this fact.

Choosing an appropriate remedy amongst the thousands

available in our pharmacopeia (let alone the infinite

number yet to be added it) is a challenge to perceive

this uniqueness.

 

And there is more. The novice might assume that to be

successful, one need only select the most suitable

remedy for the patient. But that is not the case. For

the selection of the remedy is merely the beginning of

the curative process. The practitioner must now see

the patient through the this journey. And this

oftentimes is more of a challenge than the initial

choice of a remedy.

 

There are several different aspects to case

management. One is being patient. While seemingly

instant cures do occur - and nothing is more uplifting

for patient and practitioner alike, they are the

exception rather than the rule. This is because the

vast majority of people who seek the assistance of a

homeopath do so for chronic problems and the curative

process will also take time.

 

Another issue is what are generally known as

“obstacles to cure”. Obstacles to cure, recognized

very early on in the development of homeopathy, are

anything that partially or fully inhibits the capacity

of a well chosen remedy to act curatively.

 

These range from life situations (such as familial and

work circumstances), to environmental (such as

overexposure to dampness, extreme temperatures, or

toxins), nutrition (inappropriate or inadequate food)

to medical interventions (such as drugs, surgery, or

diagnostic procedures like ultrasounds and MRIs. Even

other non-conventional treatments like acupuncture can

disrupt the action of a remedy.). It is rare that a

treatment is not somehow affected by an obstacle to

cure.

 

Yet, even one is patient and even if obstacles to cure

are either avoided or surmounted, there is another key

element to case management.

 

PART II

 

Constantine Hering had an auspicious birthday, I

suppose. Born in the state of Saxony (which today is

federal state of Germany) on the first day of January,

1800, he was a prodigious student who began his

medical studies at the age of 17.

 

He first studied at a ‘Surgical Academy’ and then

became the disciple of a prominent surgeon at the

University of Leipzig. It was during this period that

it was requested of him to write a treatise denouncing

the work of another Saxon, some 45 years his senior,

who had developed a new system of medicine over the

previous three decades.

 

In 1792, Samuel Hahnemann had discovered a law of cure

which eventually led him to create Homeopathy. Also a

graduate of the University of Leipzig (Leipzig was

considered to be the “Athens of Saxony”), Hahnemann

had returned there in 1812, after many years of

restless wandering, to become a member of the medical

faculty in order to promulgate this “new school”.

 

Homeopathy has never been easily accepted by the

orthodox ‘old school’ physicians - then or now. It

challenges many of the basic tenets of conventional

medical thinking, and is a demanding science to both

understand and put into practice. Hahnemann, for his

part, with his searing intellect made things worse

because he was not of a temperament to gain adherents

through the art of gentle persuasion.

 

As a physician, he had witnessed the ineffective,

often lethal practices of the old school physicians

and perceived that they lacked a cohesive, logical

reasoning to support their methodology. Despite his

own medical successes, resistance to and condemnation

of his thoroughly reasoned and experimentally proven

ideas was strong. This fueled an indignation that

boiled over at Leipzig.

 

He was openly contemptuous of the lesser minds who

refused to objectively review his research or could

not grasp its implications, and instead were

determined to protect their orthodoxy at all costs. As

his biographers noted, Hahnemann’s lectures were " a

raging hurricane against the old methods " 1 where he

launched " uncontrolled and abusive attacks on

contemporary medicine... (and) became incoherent and

lost the sympathy of his audience. " 2

 

Lacking followers amongst the medical students and

loathed by his colleagues, Hahnemann became the target

of a campaign to repudiate him and his work. It was in

this context that Hering’s mentor, who was an

outspoken critic of homeopathy, was asked to

participate by putting his thoughts into writing. Not

feeling he had the time to spare, he asked his student

to do it in his stead.

 

Hering accepted the assignment and began to prepare

for it by studying Hahnemann’s works. On doing so, he

was struck by Hahnemann’s insistence that " the

doctrine appeals, not only chiefly, but solely to the

verdict of experience " and a plea to his readers to

" repeat the experiments...repeat them carefully and

accurately and you will find the doctrine confirmed at

every step... (Homeopathy) does what no medical

doctrine, no system of physics, no so-called

therapeutics did or could do, it insists upon being

judged by the result. " 3

 

And so Hering did. He purchased a supply of Cinchona,

the very same substance with which Hahnemann had done

his first experiments in 1792, and repeated them

himself. He thus was able to confirm that the law of

cure or Law of Similars, “similia similibus curentur”

or “let likes be cured by likes” - which stated that

any substance capable of producing unhealthy symptoms

in the healthy will remove similar symptoms occurring

as an expression of disease - was in fact absolutely

true.

 

It was some time after this that Hering, still a

student of surgery, experienced a severe dissecting

wound on his hand which became gangrenous. While he

was advised that amputation was necessary, he instead

took the advice of a friend who had studied from

Hahnemann. Taking a homeopathically prepared dose of

arsenic, the wound was cured and his conversion to

homeopathy was completed.

 

(Homeopathic arsenic is an extremely effective remedy

for gangrene where the affected part is very sore and

burning, and where there is relief from the pains from

warm or hot applications. Arsenic and Secale -

commonly known as ‘ergot’, which is a fungus that

grows on the rye plant - are the perhaps the two most

frequently used remedies for gangrene.)

 

Instead of writing a denunciatory treatise against

homeopathy, Hering wrote a graduating thesis, “De

Medcina Futura”, extolling its curative powers. In

1826, having earned his medical degree, he was

selected by the king of Saxony to join a scientific

expedition to what today is the South American country

of Suriname, which was a Dutch possession at the time

known as ‘Dutch Guiana’.

 

Although his official responsibilities were to gather

zoological specimens, Hering also delved into the

study and practice of homeopathy during his seven

years in Suriname. He conducted homeopathic provings

(experiments designed to clarify the medicinal

properties of a substance) of many remedies, most

famously of Lachesis, the deadly Bushmaster snake, and

contributed articles to homeopathic journals back in

Europe.

 

Hering also found favor in the eyes of the Governor,

whose daughter he cured of a supposedly ‘incurable’

illness. But his medical pursuits did not find favor

back in Saxony, where the King followed advise to rein

him in and confine his activities to the official work

of the expedition.

 

Hering’s response was to resign the position and to

maintain his medical practice. However, Hering soon

learned from a former missionary who had studied

homeopathy from him while in Suriname of the great

possibilities for practice available in the United

States. In 1833, he departed Suriname to establish

himself in Philadelphia.

 

 

 

1. Richard Haehl, Samuel Hahnemann: His Life and

Works, 2 volumes, 1922

2. Trevor Cook, Samuel Hahnemann, the Founder of

Homeopathy, UK: Thorsons, 1981

3. Samuel Hahnemann, “Materia Medica Pura”, Preface

Reference: Bradford, TL. “Constantine Hering

(1800-1880) - Pioneers of homeopathy”

 

 

PART III

 

In January of 1833, a German physician by the name of

Constantine Hering left the South American territory

then known as Dutch Guiana to establish a homeopathic

practice in Philadelphia. Until his death nearly a

half century later, Hering was involved in every

aspect of the homeopathic profession in this country.

He became the face of the homeopathic movement, and

was often referred to as the “Father of American

Homeopathy”.

 

Aside from a very successful and lucrative practice,

he was involved in the establishment of two

homeopathic colleges and personally mentored many

young practitioners. The Hahnemann Medical College,

which he chartered in 1848, was considered to be one

of the finest medical institutions in the world. He

also held weekly Saturday night meetings which

provided avid students an opportunity to share in his

knowledge and experience.

 

Hering was also a tireless researcher and writer. He

had already conducted homeopathic provings (research

experiments on the curative action) of many remedies

before and during his 7 years in South America. After

his arrival in North America, he continued this work,

proving some thirty medicines.

 

He wrote about a dozen books and pamphlets, ranging

from introductory material for the layperson to highly

technical works for the professional. His “Guiding

Symptoms of Our Materia Medica” was an enormous

project that he began at the age of 79 which was based

on notes taken over a lifetime of practice. He did not

live to see it finished, but his students carried on

this monumental work and published the 10 volume text

in 1891.

 

One of his most famous works, the “Domestic

Physician, " was first published in 1835 and went

through fourteen editions in America, two in England,

and thirteen in Germany, and has also been translated

into the French, Spanish, Italian, Danish, Hungarian,

Russian, and Swedish languages. This little book found

its way into many American households, and was said to

have been an indispensable companion for pioneer

families heading west.

 

 

Hering was also the editor of several homeopathic

journals and one of the founders of the American

Institute of Homeopathy, the first association of

Homeopathic physicians (which is still in existence

today).

 

Hering dedicated himself to homeopathy until the day

he died, at the age of 80, of a heart attack on the

way home from a house call to a patient. But one of

the most enduring legacies associated with his name is

a set of observations studied by all homeopaths,

codified under the name “The Law of Direction of

Cure”, or more commonly, “Hering’s Law”.

 

Every first year student has learned Hering’s Law as

part of the homeopathic canon. But in actuality, the

question of it’s accuracy and clinical application has

remained something of a conundrum for neophyte and

veteran homeopaths alike.

 

The Law is based on observations Hering made regarding

the curative process that follows the administration

of an appropriate homeopathic remedy. This process is

for the most part - and especially in chronic illness

- one that occurs over time. The disease symptoms

don’t just simply disappear but begin to shift,

changing location and/or organ system in the body.

 

This is the case because, different from conventional

or allopathic medicine where treatment is typically

solely aimed at removing symptoms, the stimulation of

a homeopathic medicine is designed to awaken the

body’s innate vitality so that it no longer needs to

produce symptoms.

 

Symptoms are understood as an indication of an

imbalance, they are NOT the imbalance or the disease

itself. True cure does not occur if the symptoms are

simply quelched or suppressed. Asthma is not cured by

inhaling steroids, even though the symptoms disappear

(temporarily). Eczema is not cured by apply steroids,

even though the patches disappear. Hypertension is not

cured even though a statin drug is taken.

 

So, with the stimulation provided by the proper

homeopathic remedy, the inner vitality - what

homeopaths call the “Vital Force” - energizes the

body, and awakens its capacity to rid itself of

encumbrances and toxins that inhibit well-being. But

how is this experienced by the patient? And, what can

objectively be observed?

 

In some cases, symptoms do in fact just fall away and

a sense of well-being is quickly restored. But in a

large percentage of cases, the awakening of the Vital

Force produces a chain reaction of internal responses

that subjectively and objectively are experienced as

symptoms.

 

I often compare it to house cleaning. If there is a

mess on the floor in a particular room, you have the

option to just take all the stuff and throw it in the

nearest closet so it won’t be seen. This is an

allopathic “cure”. But, if you are interested in being

more thorough, you realize that the mess is a result

of the fact that there isn’t a good place to put

things away, so you begin to reorganize the closets in

that particular room and others as well.

 

On doing so, you see how not only things need to be

rearranged, but that there is also a lot of dust and

dirt that needs to be cleaned. Soon, you have things

pulled off shelves and out of drawers, stuff gets

piled on the floor while you vacuum and clean. In the

midst of this process, the house might look like a

mess! But you know that it is a temporary state of

affairs, which will result in a cleaner, more

organized space.

 

The “Law of the Direction of Cure” is nothing more or

less than a guideline that indicates to the

practitioner whether or not the state of affairs that

results after a patient takes a remedy is the

temporary disorder of a good housecleaning.

 

Reference: Bradford, TL. “Constantine Hering

(1800-1880) - Pioneers of homeopathy”

 

 

PART IV

 

Law of Cure - IV

 

A woman complaining of long term arthritic complaints

in her hands is prescribed a homeopathic remedy and

three weeks after taking it experiences a powerful

flu, “like I haven’t had in years!”. After recovering

from the flu, she notices her hands don’t hurt.

 

A young child is brought in with asthmatic symptoms.

After taking a homeopathic remedy, the breathing

improves but eczema appears in the creases of his

elbows and behind his knees. These are the same

symptoms he had before the asthma, that were treated

by topical steroids.

 

A woman being treated for enlarged thyroid reports

that after homeopathic treatment, the gland is

smaller, she had an episode of high blood pressure

which has now stabilized and now her back is sore.

 

A little girl brought in by her mother for

uncontrollable fits of anger is treated

homeopathically. Soon after, the girl has a fever and

sore throat.

 

All of the above are real clinical examples of what is

known has the “Law of Direction of Cure” or “Hering’s

Law”. The Law is really a set of observations that the

great 19th century homeopath Constantine Hering made

about the curative process that ensues after the

administration of an appropriate homeopathic medicine.

 

Hering understood that in most cases, especially when

dealing with chronic illness, the restoration of

health through homeopathic (or any other truly

curative) means is a process occurring over time

during which the disease is pushed out. This means

that, for the most part, it is not the case that all

symptoms just fall away, but that they begin to shift

in nature and location.

 

He categorized the way this shift occurs into four

patterns:

 

A. Symptoms will shift from the top of the body

downward. For example, a rash that first develops on

the chest will move from the torso down into the legs.

 

B. Symptoms will shift from the inner parts of the

body to the outer parts. As an example, asthma in the

lungs will give way to skin eruptions.

 

C. Symptoms will shift from those that developed

recently to those that were experienced in the past.

For example, someone with headaches will have a

lessening of the headaches along with a reappearance

of urinary tract infection experienced several earlier

which was treated with antibiotics.

 

D. Symptoms will shift from more essential to less

essential parts of the body. For example, an

improvement in high blood pressure is accompanied by a

case of diarrhea.

 

In each of these cases, the shift in symptoms is not

permanent. The new symptoms are transitory. They will

disappear to leave the body symptom free. It might be

the case that the shift in symptoms goes through

several stages; that the new symptoms in turn give way

to other symptoms following the same pattern until

they disappear fully. Either way, however many stages

they go through, the end result of true cure, is the

same.

 

This process and the concept of a ‘true cure’

contrasts with an allopathic (conventional) or

symptomatic approach, which merely seeks to eliminate

a particular symptom without addressing the an

underlying cause. Quite to the contrary, it is often

the case that such a treatment when ‘successful’,

actually will result in more serious problems -

following Hering’s Law in reverse, as it were.

 

The most common example of this is the use of topical

medicines to treat skin eruptions, which months or

years later results in a compromised respiratory

tract. Apparently out of the blue, asthma or allergies

develop, which are again treated symptomatically,

often times requiring a lifelong drug regimen.

 

On the other hand, the appropriate choice of a

homeopathic medicine is based on stimulating the vital

energies (or ‘vital force’) of the entire person, not

aimed at erasing a symptom. Once stimulated, the vital

energy produces a healing reaction, realigning the

energies of the entire body. Hering’s Law is a guide

to how this reaction and alignment proceeds.

 

The great caveat here is the word “appropriate”. The

inappropriate choice of a homeopathic remedy - for

instance, a choice based solely on the local symptoms

of the patient without considering his or her general

state - can bring about the same negative consequences

as allopathic drugs.

 

A patient seeking help for an acute case of diarrhea

may be quite pleased with a symptomatic prescription

of a remedy that stops the diarrhea and will never

suspect that the arthritic symptoms that come on

several months later have anything to do with the

“successful” treatment of the diarrhea. Here too,

Hering’s Law will serve as a guide, indicating that

the treatment was not appropriate.

 

While the value of the “Law of Direction of Cure” to

the conscientious homeopath is indisputable, it is all

too easy to ignore it or find it difficult to apply in

practice. In fact, Often, it can appear contradictory

or just plain confusing.

 

How is one to understand, for example, if after

prescribing a homeopathic remedy, the symptoms change

from a chronic sore throat to the reappearance of

headaches that used to be a problem years before? Do

we simply interpret it as a shift of symptoms upwards,

against the direction of cure? Or is a shift from more

recent symptoms to older ones?

 

Suppose there is a shift of symptoms from arthritis in

the joints to heartburn? Which tissue is more

essential, the connective tissue of joints or the

lining of the digestive tract? Or, do we understand it

as moving from the periphery to the interior?

 

Next we’ll look at the work of a modern day homeopath

who has examined Hering’s Law through the lense of

embryology, clarifying many of its seeming

contradictions and making it a more accessible tool.

 

 

PART V

 

A few months ago, a homeopath from India visited my

office to observe my practice and to share with me

some of his knowledge and experience. Dr. Mehta

brought along a book describing some remarkable cured

cases he had authored that also contained a CD showing

the patients at various stages of their treatment1.

 

One was the case of a 20 year old man who had been

diagnosed with a type of glioma, which is a cancer of

the brain that begins in the glial cells. (Glial cells

surround and support nerve cells). The cancer was

located in the brainstem and was causing local

internal bleeding.

 

He had to be carried into the clinic in late 2003

suffering from a host of symptoms caused by the tumor:

slurred speech, double vision, noises in the ear,

vomiting, dropped eyelid.

 

Homeopaths are fond of saying that we treat the

individual, not the disease or, as Dr. Mehta’s

teacher, Pratfull Vijayakar, likes to put it,

“homeopaths treat the person in the disease, not the

disease in the person.” The symptoms caused by the

tumor are of the disease - most anybody with a tumor

in that location would experience them. They will not

lead to the choice of an appropriate remedy.

 

So, Dr. Mehta needed to make a basic homeopathic

analysis of this young man to find what was

characteristic of him as a person. He noted that the

patient’s behavior was immature for his age, that he

was slovenly in his dress, that he had a history of

scabies and allergies to conventional drugs, and that

he was very warm blooded. Based on these

characteristics, he chose a homeopathic medicine.

 

The analysis was quite rudimentary and the choice of

remedy, a preparation of homeopathic Sulphur, very

common. There was little that was at all remarkable

here; certainly nothing that even a beginning

homeopath could not do. What was remarkable -

absolutely extraordinary - was the way that the case

unfolded over the next year.

 

In the beginning of December 2003, he was given a few

pellets of homeopathic Sulphur. Within one week, he

began to show improvement: sleep was better, speech

had improved, walking with assistance was possible,

opening and closing the eyes was possible. There was

no need to give anymore of the remedy because it was

obviously acting positively.

 

A month later, the patient complained of chest

congestion, burning urination and difficult bowel

motions. At the same time, his speech, eye motions and

ability to move had improved. Dr. Mehta again gave no

remedy. As he understood it, symptoms of the cancer

situated deep in the nervous system were giving way to

more superficial symptoms located in the lungs and

bladder. A curative process was underway - and

prescribing a remedy at this point would only serve to

disturb it.

 

In February, the patient complained of a fever,

breathlessness and increased sensitivity to cold. But

his walking, talking, vision and strength were still

continuing to improve. Again, no treatment was given

as the patient was getting better while experiencing

superficial symptoms.

 

A month later, he was playing cricket. In May, he

developed skin eruptions on his hands. This was an

indication that the disease process had reached the

most superficial layer of the body, and that the

condition was well on its way to a total cure. Again,

no treatment was necessary. Quite to the contrary, any

interference at this point with topical medications or

internal medicines (homeopathic medicines included!)

would have been disastrous.

 

The patient was seen in September for fever and cough

which needed no treatment, and discharged from care.

 

Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of Homeopathy, wrote

that “the highest ideal of cure is the rapid, gentle

and permanent restoration of health… in the shortest,

most reliable, and least disadvantageous way,

according to clearly realizable principles.”2

And this case is a superb illustration of how

homeopathic care can fulfill this dictum.

 

It is also a superb example of “The Law of Direction

of Cure”, commonly known as “Hering’s Law”, which is a

series of observations concerning the curative process

that will ensue from the appropriate medicinal

stimulation. It was this principle which served as a

guide to Dr. Mehta, allowing him to patiently observe

the cure unfold in this patient without either

intervening with another medicine or even

re-subscribing the same medicine.

 

On reviewing this and about ten other similar cases

with Dr. Mehta that day in my office, I was duly

impressed with his skill as a practitioner and with

the teaching of his mentor, Dr. Vijayakar, who has

interpreted Hering’s Law according to modern

embryology. This modern understanding brought life and

practical clinical usefulness to these principles.

 

Yet, it was impossible for me to hear about these

cases without a certain sense of dismay and

exasperation. With one exception, there was no medical

intervention - conventional or otherwise - in any of

these very serious illnesses. That was the crucial

aspect in their resolution. And, the one exception was

purposefully put in the book to show the fatal outcome

when the curative process was not allowed to unfold.

 

What was exasperating was to see the power of proper

homeopathic treatment in such grave pathologies while

knowing that it can just about never occur in this

country. Although people with similar conditions do

seek out homeopathic care, it is almost always in

conjunction with conventional treatment - or after

conventional treatment has made the situation

hopeless. Even if such a patient wished to be treated

solely by homeopathy, liability issues would make most

practitioners balk at such an undertaking.

 

 

1. Mehta, Narendra, Dr., “Understanding the Follow-up

in deep-seated Diseases”. Manisha Publications, Mumbai

India 2005

2. Hahnemann, Samuel, Dr “Organon of the Medical Art”,

6th edition; Aphorism 2, Edited by Wenda Brewster

O'Reilly. Birdcage Books, 1996.

 

 

PART VI

 

Cure, the rapid and permanent restoration of health,

the annihilation of disease in its entirety (to

paraphrase Samuel Hahnemann), is a process that

happens over time.

 

In acute illness, that period of time can be - and

often needs to be - relatively short. The proper

homeopathic remedy placed on the tongue of someone

with a fever, someone experiencing pain from an

injury, or someone suffering from food poisoning can

act with remarkable, seemingly instantaneous speed.

 

But the majority of serious illnesses today are not of

that nature. They are chronic, often degenerative

problems that have developed over years, and will take

time to resolve. Patience to see the curative process

to its resolution is a key attribute for both the

patient and practitioner alike.

 

This is an attribute that is easier to come by as long

as there are indications that the curative process is

indeed taking place. Clearly, a reduction in the

frequency, intensity or number of symptoms is such an

indication. But, it is not unusual that the

amelioration of the original symptoms is also

accompanied by the expression of different symptoms in

other parts of the body or symptoms that predate the

current illness.

 

Generally, these different symptoms can signify either

that the cure is progressing in a positive direction -

or that the disease is worsening. The attentive

practitioner pays careful attention to the evolution

of symptoms, and the homeopathic “Law of the Direction

of Cure”, otherwise known as “Hering’s Law”, is a most

useful guide to differentiate between progress and

deterioration.

 

As we have seen previously, the tenets of Hering’s Law

- that during the curative process symptoms shift from

the top of the body downward, from the inner parts of

the body to the outer parts, from those that developed

recently to those that were experienced in the past,

and/or from more essential to less essential parts of

the body - are sometimes easier to understand in

principle than to apply in practice.

 

Dr. Parfull Vijayakar, a highly respect homeopathic

physician from Mumbai, India, has thought deeply about

the meaning of Hering’s Law, interpreting it in light

of what modern science teaches us about the

embryological development of body tissues, and thus

has clarifed its principles so as to make it more

useful clinically.

 

The structural development of the embryo is not a

random event, but a step by step process that moves in

predetermined directions which are known in embryology

as ‘axes’ (the plural of ‘axis’).

 

It was Dr. Vijayakar’s insight that these axes have a

strong correlation with the principles of Hering’s

Law. For example, what is known as the ‘Cephalo-caudal

axis’ is the development starting from the upper body

and moving downward to the lower parts. This obviously

correlates with ‘from above downward’ aspect of

Hering’s Law.

 

Another example would be the ‘Latero-lateral axis’

which indicates development from the inside to the

outside of the body and correlates to a similar tenet

of Hering’s Law.

 

During the development of the human embryo, the cells

move in a complex and coordinated manner resulting in

the formation of three layers known as the ectoderm,

endoderm, mesoderm. All the tissues of a fully

developed human derive from one of those three dermal

layers.

 

The ectoderm or external layer of tissue

differentiates to give rise to the outer layer of the

skin,the sweat glands, hair, nails, the teeth, the

lens of the eye, parts of the inner ear. All are

tissues exposed to the external world, and they make

up the first level of protection against illness. When

disease appears here it is relatively superficial and

non-threatening.

 

The endoderm or inner layer differentiates to become

the linings of respiratory, digestive and urinary

tracts, as well as the liver, gall bladder and ducts.

Most of these tissues are internal tubes, and

indirectly are exposed to the external environment -

air entering the lungs, food entering the intestines,

etc. This is the second layer of protection.

 

A disease that manifests in these organs is deeper

than one of the ectoderm. Thus, when a disease such as

a rash that begins in the ectoderm moves into the

endoderm, exhibiting symptoms like diarrhea, this is a

deepening or worsening of the state of the person.

Likewise, if the condition begins as diarrhea and

changes into a rash, this is an improvement.

 

So, when a homeopathic remedy is administered

resulting in the shifting of symptoms from the

ectoderm to the endoderm, it is apparent that the

remedy was incorrect. If it shifts in the opposite

direction, the remedy is acting correctly.

 

The mesoderm or middle layer differentiates into bone,

muscle, connective tissue, and the middle layer of the

skin. The heart, blood vessels, blood and lymph as

well as the kidneys and lungs also derive from the

mesodermal tissue.

 

These two types of tissue, the connective tissues like

bone, muscle and cartilage, and the mesodermal organs,

the kidneys and lungs, make up the 3rd and 4th levels

of protection respectively.

 

The endocrine glands which function to secrete

hormones into the blood are partly derived from the

endoderm and partly from a specialized ectodermal

tissue called the ‘neuroectoderm’. They form the 5th

layer.

 

The 6th layer is made up of the nervous system - the

nerves, brain, and spinal cord - which is also

neuroectodermal tissue. Finally, the 7th and deepest

level is the genetic code which is the source of all

the cellular differentiation.

 

The same concept concerning the shifting of symptoms

which was illustrated above in terms of the first and

second levels can also be applied to symptoms shifting

between any of the seven levels.

 

If the symptoms move from higher levels to lower ones,

the disease is worsening. A shift in the opposite

direction indicates improvement. For example, if after

the adminstration of a remedy (or a drug), rheumatic

symptoms (connective tissue, 3rd level) disappear and

sometime later the thyroid becomes underactive

(endocrine system, 5th level), then this was the

incorrect treatment.

 

Conversely, if after the treatment of hypothyroidism,

rheumatic symptoms appear then a curative process is

taking place. It indicates to the practitioner that

things are moving in the correct direction and, most

importantly, to not interfere with the curative

process. Patience will be rewarded by the

disappearance of these newer, more superficial

symptoms and the eventual full restoration of health.

 

© 2005 Center for Homeopathy design by warnerwebworks

 

http://www.centerforhomeopathy.com/articles.php?showarticle=1 & article=105