Homeopathy Tips for 3/16/10 What Healing Looks Like

Finding what is asking to be healed is one of the big challenges for homeopaths. But once the remedy is given how do we know that it is really working? It helps to have a guide to knowing what healing looks like. It is different for every case.

Constantine Hering gave us his Hering’s Law of Cure that describes how healing follows most naturally. I have seen this in action many times. His precepts are;

  • We heal from the top downward
  • We heal from the inside outward.
  • We heal the most vital organs first to the least vital organs.
  • We heal from the most recent symptoms to those most distant in time.

These do not necessarily need to follow any particular order and can be happening simultaneously at the same time in a case.

Each case is different and has it’s own expression of intensity. When we give a remedy we do not know the response the person will have to it. Therefore it is very important to observe the reaction. Sometimes it is very difficult to understand what is happening especially if there is an aggravation. There is always an aggravation with cure. With the proper selection of remedies, potency and their application, aggravations should always be mild. If there is no aggravation and an immediate cessation of symptoms, it is usually a suppression. Suppressions can happen with a remedy similarly as to  allopathic drugs. We must be very careful and observe keenly.

Every time we give a remedy we have some expectation. It is important to know what our expectations are so we can proceed correctly after observing the response to the remedy. Chronic cases and acute cases have a very different expectation.

In acute cases, those conditions which are self limiting and usually will resolve themselves within weeks, we can expect a response anywhere from 12 to 24 hours or sooner. The more life threatening the condition the more urgent is our need to see a change in the condition of the person after the remedy. Sometimes it may be necessary to repeat the remedy every minute and after 5 minutes we may want to change to a different remedy if we determine it has not worked. Most colds, flues and minor injuries will resolve with an increase in general energy along with a decrease in symptoms. I find that homeopathic treatment rarely resolves the condition any differently than it would otherwise naturally resolve. It just speeds up the process.

Occasionally it is seen that the acute condition is an aggravation during the chronic treatment. We must not be tempted to change the chronic remedy during this time. If the condition becomes too severe, then add an acute remedy during this time to help reduce the suffering. It is important to continue the remedy that brought the person to this current aggravation because it will also be the same remedy that will help them resolve it.

During the treatment of chronic conditions it can be more difficult to determine if the remedy is working, especially in the beginning of treatment. When there is not a strong pathology the mental symptoms become the guide.

The most common initial responses in chronic treatment is that there is an increase in physical energy, the person becomes more optimistic about their life (it gets easier) and there is an increase in dream activity during sleep. Dreams become more active because the subconscious mind is being inspired by the response to the remedy from the vital force.

Many times I will have a client who is reporting that their main physical complaints are improved only slightly but they are feeling better about their life. Negative conditions and situations are resolving and they have a greater clarity about them. This I find to be one of the best signs that a remedy is working in relatively healthy people. The aches and physical complaints may only be improved slightly after a couple of months but in time they too will resolve when there is such an improvement in the mental and emotional states.

There is a hierarchy to our being that corresponds to Hering’s law of cure. At the very top of our being is our spiritual connection to source or G-d. The next level is our mind (how we see our world). The next level is our emotions (energy in motion that connects our mind to our body). The lastly our physical and all of the sensations that indicate suffering.

When we heal we heal from the top down. Our mind should reflect a greater sense of well being before our physical conditions improves. When we give a remedy that makes the physical condition go away and the mind become less clear then we have made grave error and the remedy should be antidoted or a better remedy given very soon.

When healing is happening in a pathology free chronic case the person will report that they are dealing with things that they had never thought were connected to the reason they came for treatment. Encourage them to stay with the remedy even when the physical body has yet to seem like it is responding. Remind them that the vital force is responsible for all of their sufferings at all levels and is choosing to work on the mental and emotional levels prior to the physical level. It is following Hering’s Law of Cure.

In acute and chronic cases the bottom line for knowing if the remedy is working is movement. Ask yourself, ” has there been movement in the case?” When it is easily seen and reported so during the follow-ups then you are seeing the healing response. Healing equals movement.

54 comments so far

  1. Peter Bezemek on

    Dear Robert,

    Hering’s Law of Cure does not exist, it’s a homeopathic myth. I do not know who invented this label, but it sure was not Hering. He DOES mention something in the way of RULES or HELPFUL POINTS in some of his articles, but no way does he call them LAW. Beside that they are rarely observed in practice, whatever the theory may say (and that’s no surprise since they can often be contradictory). Only one of those “laws” is generally observed in practice and that’s the last one (“most recent symptoms to those most distant in time”), the other may or may not be present (so you can hardly call them law).

    There is always an aggravation with cure? Come on! That’s just not true. It seems like you drafted this article from some “Homeopathic myths” book.

    Robert, I do not think it is a good idea to produce an article every week or so. It’s just too much effort and the quality is suffering. I am aware that you are just repeating what (almost) everyone else is saying, but I believe we should do our homework before we are trying to teach somebody. A lot of thinking about the basic principles of our healing method is of tremendous importance both to education and practice.

    Take care,
    Peter Bezemek

    • Dr.H.C.Malaker on

      Hi peter Bezemek,i really failed to collect the essence from your topic neither its an educational or beneficial to treat a patient in homeopathy.You are mostly welcomed here with correct beneficial theory or topics those are really essential to develop homoeopathy in this modern world.If you dont have a patience please wont make such confusing post here,you have full liberty to ignore every mailing newsletter issued by Resonance school of homeopathy.Warm regards,malaker

      • Peter Bezemek on

        Dear Sir,

        you are mostly welcome to read my other messages, where I elucidated the topic in sufficient detail.
        The core of my message is the same as mentioned in the first sentence of the first message: “Hering’s Law of Cure does not exist, it’s a homeopathic myth.”

        The substantial benefit of mentioning this lies in the fact that people may start thinking about it instead of blindly repeating the things said by our homeopathic predecessors, without sufficient understanding.

        If you find opposing views distressing, feel free to ignore my messages.

        Peter Bezemek

  2. Dr. Meena Khandare Supnekar on

    I gave a 3-year-old patient a dose of Syphilinum 10M. On the 3rd day he had convulsions which he never had. He was a retarded child. I gave him a dose of Opium 30 and his convulsion stopped in 5 minutes and never reoccured. Still he was admitted in the NICU where all reports including EEG were normal. He is still in NICU, but quite normal

    What had happened to the baby. Why did he have convulsions?

    • Peter Bezemek on

      My guess would be it happened due to potency being far too high. Syphilinum is mentioned in grade 3 in “Generalities, convulsions, spasms, epileptic” and the shock caused by a high potency might have had caused that.

      Some homeopaths advise to be very very careful when giving nosodes in potencies about 200 CH.

  3. Anukant on

    Dear Peter

    You are very correct when saying that robert is just repeating what (almost) everyone else is saying, but i would like to ask how many are applying the basics to their practice. And i think that it is only robert who atleast make us remember every week about the basics. Well done Robert we really need you.

    Dr Anukant

    • Peter Bezemek on

      Dear Anukant,

      that’s exactly my point, we should really ponder a lot on basics of homeopathy and not just repeat what we have been told. My point is that Hering’s law does not exist, there is no such thing, it does not work that way in practice. As far as I have read, nobody in Hering’s times had any notion of Hering’s law, nobody mentions it. I believe it started with Kent and that “Hering’s law” is his invention.

      More important than label itself is the fact that there is no such law in healing.

      Best regards,
      Peter Bezemek

  4. Salvador on

    Dear Peter,

    The core point in Heiring´s law is that of medical suppressions, emotional barries and so forth, but once you have to clear up the case, then the law is realised.


    • Peter Bezemek on

      Well, Hering’s law SHOULD guide us when evaluating the progress of the case. In theory, by applying Hering’s law we should learn if we are progressing to cure or to suppression. In reality, Hering’s law does not do that, because

      1. Hering named no such law.
      2. The four points of Hering’s law may contradict each other quite often. For example, if person has kidney problems and then gets eczema, according to Hering’s law, point number 4, the eczema should disappear first (from the most recent symptoms to those most distant in time), but according to point number 3, the kidneys (being more vital organ then skin), should heal first (the most vital organs first to the least vital organs).

      Peter Bezemek

      • Connie Trumpf on

        Hi Peter…given your example, what is to say that the kidney’a are not healing – have not begun to heal first? The eczema being the last to appear -the most recent expression of the dis-ease, will APPEAR to be the first to be healed. Tis not so much a contradiction as a misunderstanding.

      • Peter Bezemek on

        Connie, it’s a virtual example to illustrate contradiction 🙂
        So, to contradict your theory, let’s add that kidney problems manifest as a a constant aching in the kidneys and sharp pain during urination.
        We know it’s not healing, because the pains persist :-)))

      • Connie Trumpf on

        🙂 Well, lets not speak of virtuals then… what has been your experience Peter. Are you bringing this to point because in your practice you have seen differently?

      • Peter Bezemek on

        Connie, that example just illustrates a fact that the four tenets of Hering’s Laws may at times contradict each other, therefore they cannot be used as a general rule.

        Of course my experience has been different. See my examples I have mentioned in replies to other people.

        “When a person has pain in the bronchi and after administering the remedy they get cough and the pain disappears and then they get coryza and cough disappears, it’s not top-down, it’s down-up.”

        That’s my standard experience in acutes involving respiratory complex. On the other hand, if the patient had cough which is now subsiding, but the pain in the bronchi appears, you know (or should know) you have messed up, despite following the top-down direction.

        So, you cannot rely on Hering’s Laws at all, except maybe the last tenet (more recent to less recent symptoms), which can be observed regularly (but I would not put my hand into fire to say it should happen in ALL cases). Regarding the other three, they just may or may not happen, depending on circumstances of the case.

        Hering’s Laws is just one of the beliefs in homeopathy which, unfortunately, is not confirmed in practice (and I would be grateful if it was as simple), whatever anyone may say. Of course, in public, most teachers will claim that their cases DO FOLLOW Hering’s Laws, but that’s just plain illusion that reiterates the dogma. Vijaykar’s method makes a lot more sense and at least it does not contradict itself.

        Best regards,
        Peter Bezemek

  5. Robert Field on

    Hello Everyone and Hello Peter Bezemek,

    I want to thank everyone for participating in this forum. It is dicussions like this that are healthy and I encourage them. As long as everyone remains respectful, I hope they continue.

    Whether Hering’s “Law of Cure” exists or not by label or name only, is not the point. The principles are valid, true and observable. You are wrong Peter, to ignore these precepts. I see them in may practice daily. If a case is not moving in the correct direction, I have a guide to help me correct it. If the case is moving in the proper direction, I also have a guide to keep it going that way.

    The only part of your comment that is correct is that we often see the case with one or more of the movements happening simultaneously. The patient will always tell us how to interpret this. We do not get to choose how another will heal so it is our job to apply good principles and allow the vital force to respond. If we cannot understand clearly what is happening in the case, it is because we are not clear in ourselves. Having princples to guide us helps.

    The vital force rules with unbounded sway and would never choose to ignore healing of a more vital organ by healing the lesser vital organ first. This would not be in the best interest of the organism as a whole. When we heal we do heal from the top downward. I have seen this during aggravations many times. The skin will become effected and a flush starting at the head will eventually end at the feet. When there is any expression at the level of the skin (being the least vital organ and at the perifery of the body) it is to be encouraged. I have seen mental illness return when the skin eruption was suppressed by homeopathy. This is not a good thing to have happen.

    These principles are very real. I hope that by talking about this it will open doors of perception when treating clients. It could make a big difference in the case. Was it Kent who said that he would rather be in a room of villans with knives than in the hands of an incompetant homeopath?

    Peter, If these newsletters are being offered too often for you, you have the free will to read or not. If they are causing you distress then I suggest that you stop. If on the other hand, you do enjoy them then please enjoy them fully. I recognize that some of you may find the subject matters trivial. But lest we not forget that pleasant, friendly reminders of our healing art may come at the most appropriate times. I encourage everyone to be open and enjoy.

    Robert Field

    • Peter Bezemek on

      Dear Robert,

      I am sorry to see you talking around the subject instead of addressing the point. I believe I have explained the problem with the APPLICATION of Hering’s laws very clearly, disregarding the naming issue.

      You are saying we heal from top downward. So if a person heals the other way round, are you saying it is suppression?
      If one gets an eruption on the head, which then goes to arms, hands and legs, would you AT ALL TIMES expect them to heal top downward? Or would the eruption rather disappear in the reverse order of appearance as in point 4 of Hering’s laws? As you see, one point violates the other, therefore it is no law and you cannot use it as law. The best you could say is “we SOMETIMES heal from top downwards”, but that doesn’t sound like much of a law, does it?

      Regarding the newsletters, when I mentioned that it’s “too much effort”, I was referring to your effort of writing them, not me reading them 😉
      I was simply suggesting you to write less and better quality as I am finding the content more and more shallow as the time goes by (and I have found great in the beginning). It appears to me as if you had to force yourself into writing yet another and another newsletter, just to make it regular.

      I don’t enjoy to be critical, but since you are providing these lectures to general public, I felt obliged to respond (no distress 🙂 ).
      I believe that every homeopath of our times has heard about Hering’s laws, but very few had really thought about it. Repeating the nonsense does not make it true.

      Peter Bezemek

      • Robert Field on


        Does it make it true if it is observable? I applaud your desire to question, but when it is seen repeatedly in practice would it be the right thing to do to throw this valuable guide away. I would no more do that than shoot myself in the head. These precepts (notice I did not refer to them as Herings Laws of Cure) I cannot deny and when they are seen in a case, however confusing it may seem, only helps me to figure out what is really going on. If you look closely to cases you work on (assuming that you do) you will see this in action yourself. If you have never seen this happen then I do not think that your cases have been responding well in a curative manner. Just keep in mind every case is different and that eventually you will notice these. Also, your comment that “every case that cures has an aggravation is not true” is also wrong. Hahnemann noticed this and shared this with us in the Organon. He noticed this when the pure expression of the vital force was not nearly as confused as it is today with our modern allopathic drugs. This makes it harder to see when there are suppressions as deep as we see on a daily basis. There has never been one case of mine, of a chronic condition that the person has healed with homeopathy, where they did not have an aggravation. Our job as a homeopath is to follow good principles and keep the aggravation to the most minimal of suffering. But every case without exception will have an element of aggravation if the vital force is expressing a greater state of health. The vital force needs to bring the dis-ease to the surface and to the present moment in time to finally resolve the issue. We are not time travelers so it must come forth to be healed. This is the aggravation. I see this in EVERY case. I suggest you start looking again if you have never experienced this.

        Robert Field

  6. Dr.H.C.Malaker on

    Hi Peter Bezemek,thanks for your post that you have made.I have nothing to say but perhaps you are aware of that Dr.Robert Field,here is trying to give training to beginers as well as for the well knowledge of participation doctors,student and patient from different part of the world.Your reply is not correct as Herring’s law of cure is still existing.Dr.Robert Field is trying to re-assemble collecting different articles from different writer as i think renovation is necessary as the world is changing and homeopathy has also running with this change.Im pasting here the articles”Herring’s law of cure(Hering’s law of cure.
    By Dr Roger Schmidt
    Presented by Sylvain Cazalet
    Dr C. Hering
    For a series of facts and phenomena to be the object of a science, they must be united by real connections, submissive rules, principles and fixed laws. The scientific mind invents neither facts, nor their relations of causality any more than their laws and principles. Its mission consists in investigating, discovering ‘them’ and establishing them on a basis as solid as possible.
    Repeated observations and experimentation, which is only observation applied to artificially produced relations of causality, establish the reality of these facts on the firm basis of experience. When the relations of causality are permanent and invariable the existence of positive laws may be concluded from them.
    As empirically found out facts, relations of causality have too, their raison d’être. They derive from more general laws and have their principles. Leading up to these principles, in so far as they can be positively established, is the highest mission of science. On the limit of these positive principles, experimental sciences stop. If we exceed that limit, we enter the domestic domain of philosophy, the domain of primary and metaphysical causes. No scientific man should remain a stranger to this domain. Willingly or not, those limits are constantly exceeded ; as the search for principles is imposed upon the human mind by its very nature.
    The reality of the relations of causality, of the principles of laws and the possibility of proving them by observation, are the first condition of every true science. Another and quite as necessary condition is the fixity of those laws. What makes the strength and superiority of homœopathic therapeutics is that it rests on precise and fixed (LAWS and PRINCIPLES. Beside our great law SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURANTUR ) which forms the solid basis of the Hahnemannian doctrine, there exists a secondary one little known : THE LAW OF CURE.
    Constantine Hering had the merit of formulating for the first time the law of the direction of symptoms, i. e. :
    From above downwards.
    From within outwards.
    From a more important organ to a less important one.
    In the reverse order of their coming.
    Dr James Tyler Kent
    I have been unable to find the original work, J. T. Kent in his Lectures on Homœopathic Philosophy and Lesser Writings speaks of Hering and of the modus operandi of cure. Stuart Close likewise mentions the law of cure in his Genius of Homœopathy. As far as I know no trace of it can be found in the homœopathic literature or elsewhere.
    After defining what the Law is, it is useful to study the expression “cure”
    Our illustrious master, Samuel Hahnemann, took as starting point that the aim of any medicine is the cure of diseases. This is the true art of healing.
    “The perfection of a cure consists in restoring health in a prompt, mild and permanent manner : in removing and annihilating disease by the shortest, safest and most certain means, upon principles that are at once plain and intelligible”
    Hahnemann says restore health and annihilate the whole, the entire disease, not SUPPRESS certain symptoms. This discrimination is of capital importance upon which it behooves us to insist very specially, for people usually call “cure” the disappearance of certain symptoms or syndromes, external manifestations of disease, such as constipation, eruptions, leucorrhœa, piles, etc.
    A patient calls for the intervention of the physician for symptom that he finds especially unpleasant, which make him suffer in his comfort or his vanity. He does not know what distinguishes PALLIATION from a GENUINE CURE, and he has no idea that such external manifestation is only one of the episodes of a deeper affection, one of the parts, often the least important one, of the general trouble. And the physician, always in a hurry and anxious to keep the patient as a client, is but too often tempted, alas I to take the easy but dangerous way of palliation, of the suppression of external symptoms or pain. For example, this rheumatic patient so quickly freed from his articular symptoms through the energetic intervention of his physician, returns to his clever doctor shortly after and says to him, “You cured my rheumatism so well, why can you not cure my asthma ?” The physician, and of course the patient, do not recognize the connection between cause and effect of the peripheral disturbances to the related and consequent internal manifestations, which become more and more serious. The clear-sighted homœopathic physician can observe every day in his practice that connection.
    The undeniable proof of what should be called the “repercussion” in the interior of the body of external manifestations suppressed, is the return of the previous symptoms, the reappearance of external manifestations, thanks to well-chosen homœopathic remedies.
    The pains, changes, sufferings, which occur on the surface of the body, not originating from any external violence, or merely from the consequences of some slight external injury, owe their source to an internal affection. It is, therefore, equally absurd and dangerous to regard these diseases as symptoms that are purely local, and to treat them exclusively, or nearly so by topical applications, as if they were surgical cases, in which manner they have been treated till the present day.
    These maladies have been considered as purely local, and, consequently, received the appellation of such because they were looked upon as affections that were in a manner attached to the extreme parts in which the organism took little or no share, as it was ignorant of their existence.
    Reflection, however, will suffice to explain why an external malady (which has not been occasioned by an important external violence) cannot arise, continue, or much less grow worse, without some internal cause, the co-operation of the whole system, the latter consequently being diseases. ( Organon . §. 187 , 188 , 189)
    Dr Paul Carton
    Behind all local affections, says Dr. P. Carton, even the most insignificant ones, seemingly the most localized, such as anthrax, eczema, coryza, sick headache, etc., is hidden a humoral alteration, an attack against the general condition, a fall of vital resistance’s, which really form the essence of the malady. But it is principally in the so-called specialties (malady of the eye, ear or nose, etc.) that it is absolutely necessary to know that the eye, nose, ear must not be treated as if they were, so to say, placed on a tray, independently of the value of the general reactions of the patient. Insofar, any localized alteration (ulcer, fistula, abscess ganglion, etc.) can he looked upon as a barometer of the general state.
    Disease, therefore, is always general, it affects the individual as a whole, physical and psychical, and it is not possible to speak of cure unless the disturbed order has been completely restored in the whole individual and unless the symptoms have altogether disappeared.
    The human body can be considered as a sort of confederation of organs, animated by a vital, immaterial principle. The control of all the functions is effected from the centre to the circumference, so as to secure harmony and fulfil the purpose assigned to the organism. The morbific agent always affects the centre of government first, and it produces at first functional disorders before producing organic diseases. This is especially evident in acute maladies : every acute malady begins by general disturbances, modifications of the temper and character, then troubles of sleep, appetite, etc., appear. And only later after a more or less long period (called incubation period) are the manifestations localized in such or such part of the organism (static period). In chronic disease that process remains the same, though it is far more difficult to detect.
    The medica mental provings show a movement quite analogous in the intoxicating action on the economy from centre to circumference. As the centre of government is affected first, the whole economy feels that modifying influence, that is why we can observe signs and symptoms in the whole body, with predominance in such or such system or organ, giving thus to the picture of intoxication its proper physiognomy.
    Then, if the malady affects first the interior of the individual, not his outside tissues and organs, it is obvious that it is the inside which must first be put in order, and the outside afterwards. The cure must then proceed from centre to circumference, i. e.
    From above downwards.
    From within outwards.
    From the more important organs to the lesser.
    From the head to the hands and feet.
    The law of cure is infinitely precious to the physician ; it is his compass and rudder in the struggle against disease. It explains to him clearly in what manner the morbific principle evolves. The practitioner knows with certainty, which makes his strength and his success, that if the symptoms are developed in the direction indicated by the law, the patient will be cured and the symptoms will permanently disappear. He knows also when the symptoms take a country direction that the remedy was not well- chosen, that it acts as a palliative and that the patient will grow worse.
    I will quote now two cases that wilt illustrate better than any theoretical considerations, what the law of cure is in the daily practice.
    CASE 1 :
    Mr. G. B—., 72 years old, told me he suffered, when he, was about 40, from an obdurate eczema which had extended from the feet to the sexual parts, then onto the trunk, and at last to the eyelids and scalp. But for the eczema, he thought at that time, that he was very strong and in perfect health. It required years of various treatment and the use of numerous ointments to suppress little by little this eruption, traces of which are still to be seen on the scalp and eyelids. During more than twenty years since the time he had at last succeeded in ridding himself of his eczema, he suffered from frequent influenza, then from bronchitis, which tittle by little turned into asthma. He attributes all these phenomena, from which he never suffered before, to chills and these grew worse in spite of every care. Little by little rheumatism set in (a question of time perhaps) which made him suffer cruelly, in the shoulders, hands and lower limbs. Every winter he had one or two attacks of lumbago and sciatica, without mentioning attacks of bronchitis and asthma.
    Now he has a pityriasis erythema on the scalp, dry eczema of the eyelids and conjunctivitis. The skin all over the body is extremely dry and covered with little white scales, especially abundant on the limbs. When auscultating the globulous thorax, one hears big rhonci and, numerous sibilances spread about. The cough is noisy, paroxysmal, turns loose and dry. Solar plexus painful when pressed, when the patient is standing (signal pain according to Leven), which denotes a gastric ptosis. The liver, very sensitive to touch, continues beyond the ribs a little. The patient complains of lack of appetite and constipation. Dry arthritis of the shoulders and knees. Heart normal. Pulse 75. Tendon reflexes not very much marked. Numerous nodosities around the articulations of both hands. The nails of the big toes are very much thickened. The patient is frequently disturbed in his sleep by his cough and after 5 in the morning he cannot sleep at all.
    This story and the complex of the present symptoms clearly indicate Sulphur . On January 11, I gave Sulphur 30 every morning in the plus method. On February 3 ., the patient returns saying : “I feel better I sleep better, till 6.30. The cough disappeared two days ago, the breathing is deeper, the stairs much less difficult to ascend. I have an appetite again, my bowels evacuate two or three times a day.” The only shadow in the picture is the increase of rheumatism nearly everywhere. I give Placebo.
    On February 27, the above mentioned improvements are maintained. The head is lighter, the mind more active, the ideas clearer. The itching and the erythema of the scalp have disappeared. The eyes are getting better. On the contrary, the rheumatic pains are stronger in the hands and feet. “An extraordinary thing, doctor, my previous perspirations and my eczema of 20 years ago, on the genital parts, on the hands and feet have returned. I don’t want to re-commence the comedy of yore”. I warn my patient and tell him to abstain from any external medicinal application and I speak to him of the law of cure explaining to him that his symptoms are following exactly the desired direction :
    From above downward (the head is better, the lower parts of the body worse).
    From within outward (the cough, asthma, breathing, digestive functions are very much improved, whilst the extremities show serious aggravation).
    And in the reverse order of the coming of the symptoms (reappearance of the previous eczema and perspiration). Of course I give Placebo.
    On April 2. I see my patient again. He declares that his state has rapidly improved, until a recent journey during which he indulged in an indiscretion of diet, which brought a strong aggravation of all skin symptoms. The rheumatism is better but has not completely disappeared. I order a dose of Sulphur 200 and Placebo . (The duration of Sulphur 30 was 10 weeks).
    On July 6, the patient returns to thank me. He is cured and wishes to make me endorse his opinion.
    CASE II :
    Mrs. A. G—. 35 years old, comes to consult me for her general state of health. She is sensitive person, and her symptoms would cover numerous pages, therefore, I will only mention the most important. Her state of health was entirely modified after the birth of her daughter eight years ago, in spite of the care of several physicians, it was growing worse and worse. Giddiness in the morning, when standing and when going down the stairs. Sick headaches accompanied with nausea and vomiting of bile, especially before and after the menses. Her head is often flushed in the region of the vertex. The nape of the neck is the seat of heavy pains. She always feels too hot and cannot bear heat ; the warmth of the bed gives agonies in the legs, her feet are so burning that she stretches them out of the bed or walks barefooted on the cold stones of her kitchen to cool them. Violent fits of sneezing in the morning after leaving bed, followed by tears ; itching of the eyelids. Her sight is weakened and her eyes easily get tired. She has too much saliva which obliges her to swallow constantly, thence aerophagia. She is more thirsty than hungry. The stomach and abdomen, very much swollen, are as if bruised. Many eructations and intestinal gases. The menses have nothing special, except that they are followed by “whites”. Her back often hurts. Her very damp hands show an eczema of the palm for the last eight years. Pains in the shoulders, worse at night. Heaviness in the legs, which feel as if swollen. Very sudden pains in the sciatic nerve, when walking. Sleep is very troubled, because of a burning feeling of the feet, starlings and shakings of the entire body. In the morning, when awaking, she is more fatigued than when going to bed. This symptomological ensemble contains good indications of Sulphur .
    On April 5, I give Sulphur 30 , 200 M, 10M one dose of each dilution every morning and Placebo.
    On April 16, the patient tells me she felt far worse during the four days which followed her visit to my office, and she didn’t close her eyes during these four nights. Then, she felt relieved, stronger, the headaches have not re- appeared, nor the giddiness either. The nape of the neck is getting better too. The thirst has disappeared ; but she has the greatest difficulties in coming to my office, as she suffers so much in the back arid lower limbs. The eczema of the hand is increased. All this discourages her very much. I exhort her to have patience and reassure her in explaining the LAW OF CURE : “All that will go down and out, never to return”.
    Indeed, on April 30, the pains in the back have gradually disappeared after the last consultation. The hands are getting freed from the eruption. The sleep would be excellent, if the legs and especially the feet did not give her a foretaste of hell fire ; Placebo.
    See my patient only 10 weeks later, on July 16, for the good reason that she is perfectly well and cured.
    Source : Homœopathic Recorder, Feb. 1929.

    • Robert Field on

      Thanks Dr. Malaker for your comments and support,

      I was NOT trying to bring together different authors ideas about “Hering’s Law of Cure” I was referring to these precepts because I see them in practice daily. The point of the article was to remind us that once the remedy is given, how would we know it has worked? Having the guiding principles makes my job easier and more accurate. I wanted to share this insight with all of you, not to simply repeat what some other author had to say about it.
      Thanks again for your comments and support.

      Warmest regards,
      Robert Field

  7. Dr.H.C.Malaker on

    Please read as participating in place of participation.Im sorry for my type mistake.Warm regards,malaker

  8. Connie Trumpf on

    A book that I find extremely informative and helpful with this subject is by Dr. Pratful Vijayakar – Theory of Suppression.

    While it is true that Hering’s Law, or if one simply wants to call them observations, may appear contradictory, in reality, they are not. As Dr. V states – Eyes do not see what mind does not perceive

    • Robert Field on

      Hi Connie,

      Thanks for the comment and book recommendation.
      Warmest regards,


    • Dr.H.C.Malaker on

      Hi connic Trumpf,the books written by Dr.Praful vijoyker is not out from Hering law of cure.My question is every good things for treating a patient we should select like a grammer of books.Without knowledge or achievement we cnt proceeds further.As Parful vijoyker has also followed the rule of cure as par given idea of Hering’s law of cure(please look at this topic) Theory of Suppression
      by Dr Prafull Vijayakar
      Preeti Publishers, Mumbai, India, third edition 2001;
      Reviewed by David Witko
      Sometimes it is easy to be seduced by the latest works from our homeopathic teachers. The latest theories, the newest ideas
      offer tantalising visions of suddenly being able to find the,right remedy’. Several months later comes the day of recognition, the frustration that things are, as ever, not as simple as hoped for.
      Occasionally a book floats into your life that seems genuinely well timed. One that addresses an issue you have been thinking
      about for some time. So it was when I received the Theory of Suppression by Dr Vijayakar, from Mumbai, India.
      I was immediately drawn into reading a book where the author freely confessed his case failures right at the outset! An example
      was presented, of how an initial prescription seemed to alleviate the presenting complaint (with the parents of the suffering child
      very happy). What followed, however, was a steady deterioration over time in the general health and well being of the child, which led Dr Vijayakar to conclude that the homeopathic treatment he’d prescribed had insidiously suppressed the child’s vital force, hence causing the problems to worsen. This tempted me to read further. it is rare for any homeopath to admit
      that : –
      a) They have made a mistake with grim consequences.
      b) That homeopathy can suppress as well as cure.
      The author goes on to explain how this experience, and others like it, caused him to seriously re-evaluate both his own practice, and also homeopathy itself.
      Questions are provoked when reading this book. How do we really know our prescriptions are moving the patient in the right
      direction? Do we have any idea if the remedy we gave made things worse? Do we still cling to the belief that if the patient ‘feels
      better’ or has a ‘little more energy’ then things must be moving well? (even if we see no actual improvement in their symptoms?)
      After stimulating thought on these matters Dr Vijayakar then presents the results of his own deliberations and practice. Delightfully, he finds common ground with our old friend Constantine Hering. You know… Hering’s Laws on the Direction of Cure? Now don’t stop reading! I realise it has become fashionable for homeopaths to proclaim that these principles of Hering’s are not very useful in everyday practice, but surely it can do no harm to remind ourselves that, according to Hering, cure should
      From important organs to less important organs.
      From above downwards.
      From centre to periphery.
      From the inside to the outside.
      Dr Vijayakar takes Hering’s Laws, and he applies them in a thoroughly appealing, modern way, based on insights gained from
      the science of embryology.
      Essentially, and in outline, (you do need to buy and read the book yourself!) he charts the development of the human embryo in seven stages, from the cells and mind to the neural plate, neuro-endocrine system, mesoderm, connective tissues, endoderm, and its eventual cornpletion at the ectoderm. All of the organs of the body derive from these seven layers of development. To illustrate, the GI tract is formed as part of the endoderm, whilst the kidneys were formed earlier in the mesoderm.
      Vijayakar reasons that as natural embryonic growth progresses from the inside to the outside (even our bones develop this
      way), disease and ill-health will inevitably move in the reverse direction, i.e. from the outside (in Hering-speak) to the inside.
      From the ectoderm to the endoderm. From the endoderm to the mesoderm. Deeper and deeper. So if you know which parts of the body are associated with each level you can clearly see the progression of disease.
      The converse could also be true: – giving a good remedy should move disease from its deepest level outwards. If, on careful
      observation, the direction of disease is to deeper levels, then any remedy given may have been suppressive, rather than curative. it therefore follows that a homeopath, armed with this knowledge, could learn to expect (Prafull’s term is “to predict”, hence the title) what is likely to occur.
      Prafull asks us some very direct questions. For example, “A patient presents with GI problems, (e.g. stomach disturbances, hyperacidity and so on) so you give the indicated remedy. Later they return and their stomach problems are much improved – but on investigation they report that they occasionally now have tingling in the hands – is this good or bad?” Is this a case of the problem moving from the interior to the exterior (which would be good) or more important organ to lesser important organ (which would also be good)? Or this a bad sign? Has the problem moved form the Stomach to the Nervous System?
      Another example: an asthmatic patient receives treatment, and reports that their ‘allergic’ sneezing has disappeared, but they still have breathlessness on exertion. Good or bad?
      He tempts you to think: is the direction of cure from inner to outer? Is an Ankle joint problem a better part to be affected than
      the Stomach? Is this from within to without? Is it from above to below? Is it from a more important organ to a lesser important organ? And so on. Throughout, he relates these questions to embryology – which represents the facts of how every human body develops in the womb.
      Later parts of the book weave miasmatic thinking into this process. Prafull believes very strongly that there are only the classic 3 miasmatic types, He teaches that each miasm causes different afflictions to the same human organs. For example, if problems are centered on the level of the endoderm, then a patient will have GI problems. If the patient is psoric, then the problem may well be expressed as ‘acidity’, ‘diarrhoea’, ‘gastritis’ and so on. If the patient is sycotic then the problems will be expressed as gallstones, polyps and so on. Charts are provided in the book, for the purpose of giving guidance in this difficult territory. The relation of organs to embryonic layers, and through to miasms, provides a way to more deeply assess the progression of both disease and cure.
      Suffice to say that after reading this book, I felt that this approach offers something of practical interest to most homeopaths. This isn’t a book about ‘finding the right remedy’, or about provings, or the latest materia medica, or the latest interpretation of Aphorism 999 of the Organon (welcome though these subjects are). Rather, this is a book to help youascertain whether you are moving your patients towards cure, or whether things are actually getting worse. It aims to remove the uncertainty that
      surrounds your assessment of the patient’s response to a prescription.
      Although not too well known over here, Dr Vi ayakar is a renowned homeopath in Mumbai, India, with a thriving clinic and school. He has lectured widely, although never here in the UK (maybe someone will address this in due course).
      As in all things, his ideas and theories have to be put into practice. The book raises many questions that require answers.
      Fortunately there are 3 more parts to this series: – Part 2 is the Theory of Acutes (already released and available), Part 3 is the Theory of Miasms, with the final part reflecting the author’s ideas on chronic disease. If the other parts are as interesting as the Theory of Suppression then 1, for one, will be delighted!
      A final word. This book has several typographical errors and other irritants. Don’t let that prevent you from focusing on what is really important. The real question is – has Dr Prafull Vijayakar refined his principles into a reliable, easily understood approach? Only you can decide. Buy this book, read it carefully, apply it.

      • Connie Trumpf on

        Hi Dr. Malaker
        All of Dr. Vijayakar’s books are well worth a read. I initially purchased “The End of Myasmtion of Miasms” and found it so imformative I promptly purchased every book of his I could find 😀

  9. Peter Bezemek on

    That’s a very good book (in my opinion) and it provides much better clues than so called Hering’s Laws. His methods of layers of suppression based on embryology makes a good sense and is very helpful in actual practice.

    Although he tries to argue that Hering’s Laws do work, his method of evaluating the healing/suppression scenario is radically different and he seems to be confirming the validity of Hering’s Laws just to provide a familiar platform (while saying that Hering’s Laws “apparently contradict each other”, which is an obvious observation).

    Thanks for mentioning this book,
    Peter Bezemek

    • Robert Field on


      I am not trying to argue if Hering’s Law’s work or not. It is not about them working. It is about pure observation that confirms these precepts and in accord with healing. This is something that I observe. I can not be convinced that what I see repeatedly is wrong, especially since these have guided me through many successful cases. Am I to simply abandon an observation that is confirmed with my own two eyes and believe that they are not true because someone gave the title of “Hering’s Law” when Hering himself only mentioned aspects of these precepts? These observations were given a title and referred to long before either you or myself ever came to homeopathy. They have sustained all of these years because it is observed. I am not the only homeopath observing these principles of healing. Your argument of these principles being named erroneously is taken. But the principles, no matter what they are named, are valid, and observable.

      Robert Field

      • Peter Bezemek on

        Dear Robert,

        I really would not wish you to deny your experience. It’s just from purely logical standpoint, it is sometimes impossible to observe all the “axioms” of Hering’s Laws in actual case and that’s a fact.

        If you permit a bit of funny example, our discussion was going something like this:

        Robert: So folks, here’s Robert’s Laws how you recognize a human. First, human has two yes. Second, human has three eyes.

        Peter: Hey, Robert, but they cannot have two eyes and three eyes at the same time, right?

        Robert: Peter, I witness this daily in my practice, there’s no denying that Robert’s Laws do apply to every case that is properly managed by a competent homeopath.

        Peter: Sure, sure, but do these two points need to apply at the same time?

        Robert: Peter, the expression of the vital force is we should observe and let ourselves be guided with. And vital force acts according to Robert’s Laws, everyone knows that.


        So again, how can you observe two or more things that contradict each other? It’s a simple case of applying elementary logic. And you DO seem to be claiming that ALL FOUR points need to apply at the same time. Is that right?

        There are many examples that I observed when the cure did not happen in accordance with Hering’s Laws – meaning NOT ALL FOUR CONDITIONS have been fulfilled. And I have seen true cures happening without any OBSERVABLE aggravation, at least according to the client. This is especially true in acute cases when the patient is already in an bad state (but also in chronic cases, especially when you take care not to upset the client with too high potency right from the start).

        Hering’s Laws cannot be applied as laws or even as rules. IF they are rules, we need to define which one is the most important i.e. the priority of their application. But I doubt it is possible as there are possible scenarios which would destroy the construction.

        How can we as homeopaths be taken seriously if we deny logic and every little bit of scientific thinking (or even common sense)?

        Peter Bezemek

  10. n.s.rao on

    thanks Peter, but for your argument we would not have this wonder ful thougt provoking discussion.

  11. Philip Joseph on

    What a passionate, interesting, debate is being witnessed here almost making Dr Kent & Dr Hering turn over in their graves (never mind that their Healing spirits are alive and kicking in the paticipant’s daily practices!!). What wonderful sparring of knowledge betwen the stalwarts Dr Robert, Dr Malekar, Dr Peter and others. I can almost feel the punches being thrown and received (presumably good-naturedly and all for the good of the Homeopathic science). I cannot resist entering the ring at the risk of being KO’d myself but hey, no pain…no gain…So here goes. My hat & gloves are in the ring!. Dear Friends and Friendly foes: First – in 1845, Hering’s contemporaries supposedly talks about his 4 principles, but Hering himself does not publish anything declaring it. In 1865 Hering supposedly restates these as practical rules (again hearsay). In 1875, some reports allegedly surface of him sticking to only one axiom now – ‘symptoms dissappear in reverse order of appearance’. In 1911, Kent boldy calls these ‘Hering’s Laws.’ Nevertheless, these principles whether they be called Hering’s or Kent’s or Hahneman’s, I believe they have stood the test of time. I argue that Dr Prafull Viajaykar’s writings explained Hering’s Laws in a better light. Page 16 of his Introduction (Theory of Acutes, Part II) says ‘ In ‘My new concept’ Hering’s Law ia MUST in every result’. Page 153 of the same quotes ‘Above all, Hering’s Law can be observed in such cures’. Of course I read the book several times to make sure I was not using his quotes out of context. His use of Ectoderm,Endoderm, etc, etc, Neural Plate & Mind to explain progression or cure of dis-ease only corroborates Hering’s Law, albeit with a modern medical definition. In my eyes the original Hering’s axioms – “from above downward and from more vital organ to less vital organ”, caused some confusion/contradiction. For example, if I have Eye lachrymal sac blockage and cancer of my stomach, should my Lachrymal sac get better first and then my cancer?. But if you look at the depth of tissue involvement as explained by Vijaykar, it becomes clearer that cancer of stomach should get better first. Second – Aside from Vijayakar, many experienced Homeopaths wrote of their experiences agreeing with the general idea of Hering. Lecture XXXV of Homeopathic Philosophy – By Kent, speaks of the direction of cure on Page 275 (eleventh observation), he talks about “symptoms disappearing in the reverse order of their coming”. Isn’t this the 4th axiom of Hering’s principle stated in Kent’s English. Let me travel in a time machine to a more recent Homeopath – Vithoulkas. ..Page 231 & 240 of his ‘The Science of Homeopathy’ clearly states his clinical experience of seeing Hering’s principles unfold. Moving still closer in time – Dr Sankaran’s DVD – “Sankaran Live’ – he speaks of his conviction of Hering’s General ideas. Now 5 great men saying the ‘Earth is flat does not make the Earth flat’. But Hahnemann, Hering, Kent, Vithoulkas, Vijayakar, Sankaran all also record cases of cures where they observed this general direction of cure unfolding. It is inconceivable that all of them conspired to record false cases just to validate Hering’s Principles. They lived far apart in space & time. So credence has to be given to their recorded cases and if we apply Vijaykar’s interpretation of Hering’s Laws we see a lot of truth. Yes, it is possible if a similar remedy (but not the simillimum) is given long enough it can palliate without showing any of Hering’s Principles, This palliation can be mistaken to be a cure leading to confusion about Hering’s validity. The NJH 88th issue published in Aug, 2006 has an entire magazine devoted to examining Hering’s Law. But on close examination, the confusion is more due to ‘the above downward direction & mis-understanding of what is more vital and less vital organ” that creates doubt. Once you try to understand these axioms in terms of ectoderm, endoderm etc then things make more sense. Thanks, my friends, Perhaps, I lasted 15 rounds here (battered and bruised, no doubt, with a black eye or two), perhaps the referee will declare a draw and allow me to rest to fight another day. Perhaps in good humor…we need a paternity test to determine who owns the “Laws’ as Hering didn’t publicly own up and Kent seemed to have foisted this troublesome child (Laws) on Hering!! Blessings & Good Healings…..Philip

    • Peter Bezemek on


      nice post, although you seem to be kicking the open door here. Nobody argued about the 4th “axiom” of Hering’s Law (symptoms disappearing in the reverse order of their coming) – see my very first post in this thread.
      And all other things you’re saying are in agreement with what I think.

      Best regards,
      Peter Bezemek

    • Dr.H.C.Malaker on

      Dear Dr.Joseph,thanks for your briefings,i know you are very experienced doctor of this forum,we here come and share our knowledge what we get from our efforts to treat a patient when they seek homeopathic treatment which is now world’s second largest basis of treatment.Being a homeopathic physician we should follow some prefixed guidance from our old school master.Now-a-days after adding aid and cancer we are thinking our new way to cure the patient but always we need to follow repertory and our sharp weapon materia medica as its our grammer of homeopathy.Inspite of those we had to follow organon for selecting remedy.In treating 3 miasms we should use potency having the power of 30c.Who told us or being a physician we dreamed it? no we can find it from different books.In my openion a book writer only shows a way to follow it. Like that hering law of cure is that.Please dont ignore the name of father,if we become more beneficial like P.Shankaran of India,dr.Shah and more and more but how much they are geting success to cure or to heal a patient.Dr.Robert Field is doing good and publishing his practical achievement here for our guidance its not his fault.I myself always encourage him to publish more tips from his clinical achievent and what books or theory helped him to heal.I personally also welcome him for such efforts.Dr.Joseph our pricipal of cure with similar medicine is no more in use like simila similibus curentur.We are always searching adding several medicines to cure or palliate any patient.But that is no way or principal of homeopathy or classical homeopath.Please pardon me if i wrong.I always follow the principal rule of homeopathy and im happy with my practice.Warm regards,malaker

  12. Michelle on

    It seems to me that perhaps a healthy dose of common sense is called for at some point. If a patient seeking help for sinusitis says his most recent sx is pain with ejaculation, then obviously ‘from the top down’ and ‘most recent first’ are going to be mutually exclusive. However, one will not be at all surprised when one sees the pain with ejaculation cease first. If his minor skin condition goes away and he becomes manic, we should see there is a problem. We do need to apply the principles with some sense of understanding. I imagine the statements made in this weeks article assume some level of understanding and thinking on the part of the reader and that one can avoid getting hung up on the term ‘law’..
    Honestly, the criticisms have been leveled in a way that I would expect to hear only from a skeptic with an insufficient understanding of homeopathy.
    Aph 155-161 of the organon(and elsewhere, knowing Hahnemann) talk about the fact that in order for the potency of the rx to be enough to effect a cure, it needs to be stronger than the disturbance which means one can expect an aggravation, though he does also say in the 6th edition, in part of aph161, that “it ought not to appear…” but he appears to be talking about the LM/Q px.
    As for low quality of this newsletter associated with high frequency, I disagree. Many of us have surely encountered information on these topics, but that does not mean that we have heard it all or that we do not benefit from a timely reminder. I would hope Robert would not take that criticism too much to heart.

    • Peter Bezemek on


      I don’t think it’s helpful to wave away the debate by saying we should apply common sense. Applying common sense when evaluating the case is sure a good advice, but it’s a bit too general. Hering’s Laws are specific.

      Robert was also specific in his article.
      “When we heal we heal from the top down.” That’s what he’s written and it’s just not true. When a person has pain in the bronchi and after administering the remedy they get cough and the pain disappears and then they get coryza and cough disappears, it’s not top-down, it’s down-up!

      Also, in cases of true psychiatric problems that are NOT RESULT OF SUPPRESSION, you would not observe inside-out, nor would you observe more important organs to less important (considering the “mind layer” being more important than physical manifestations), but you would wish to observe symptoms disappearing in reverse order of appearance.

      So, it’s not about being “hung up”, but about being clear and delivering clear ideas.

      Best regards,
      Peter Bezemek

      • Robert Field on

        I also wrote the very next line as well;
        These do not necessarily need to follow any particular order and can be happening simultaneously at the same time in a case.

  13. Ray Malecki on

    In my experience, there is not ALWAYS an aggravation prior to cure. Drs Kent and Hahenmann both observed this too. See Kent’s Lectures On Homeopathic Philosophy, Chapter XXXV, “The Third Observation”. Also Organon 6, the material on LM potencies. There CAN be aggravation. Not MUST.

  14. Deb on

    It seems to me that the presence of an aggravation is at times only perceived by the most ardent of observers. If, as we are taught by Hahnemann, a remedy is administered that is the similimum in every way – that is remedy, potency and dose we should encounter only a slight aggravation. Sometimes the aggravavtion itself may merely be, as Robert suggests, an increase in dream activity, fleeting thoughts or pains that a patient doesn’t equate with the word aggravation. This however is still aggravation and it is what I thinkg Robert is suggesting we must be careful to recognise and interpret in order to successfully manage the case suring successive consultations.
    Cheers Deb

  15. Philip Joseph on

    Dear All: I would dearly like to re-inforce my opinion on this topic. I strongly feel that the Laws of cure bearing Hering’s name are TRUE in practise. But first I want to thank Dr Robert for providing this forum so generously for diverse opinions. His past articles have always served to educate and enlighten and be true to the science. I have learnt a lot from Dr Robert and his experience and teachings and guidance. I know his motives are true to the science. Having said that, I would like to suggest that the Laws are “Patterns” then it becomes easier to understand. Patterns of cure are always there but sometimes visible to only the most astute observer. I am quoting Hering’s Laws or Patterns as I understand them from experience and borrowing from Vijayakar’s original vision. Comments in quotes are mine, so blame me only if you disagree, not innocent Vijayakar.
    1. We heal from the top downward – “when the same embryoligical layer or miasmatic layer was affected”. Example – Patient first had Tonsillitis which was improperly treated and it dissapeared followed by chronic Eye conjunctivitis. Both are affections of same embryological layer (ectoderm and psoric miasm) and cure should first occur for Eye conjunctivitis followed by reappearance and cure of Tonsillitis. ie Healing from top downward. Although tonsils appears to be an inner organ compared to the eye, there is no contradiction – they are both part of the same ectoderm layer AND the same psoric miasm and hence above downwards cure rule applies.
    2. We heal from the inside outward. – “when disease occurred either within same embryological layer but in different miasmatic layers or across different embryological layers”. Example – Patient had Skin dermatitis (psoric ectoderm level) which was improperly cured/suppressed followed by Eye cataract (sycotic ectoderm level)followed by chronic urinary infection (psoric endoderm level). Cure should be first of Chronic urinary infection followed by cure of cataract followed by reappearance and cure of skin dermatitis. Here the axiom of cure “above downwards” seems violated but can be explained if you look at the cure happening ACROSS embryological layers and ACROSS miasms taking precedence over the “above downward cure” principle.
    3. We heal from the most “vital organs” first to the least vital organs – “Vital” organ here really means from innermost embryological layer to outer embryological layer. For example patient could have had Lung Pleurisy (psoric mesothelium level) suppressed and followed by chronic nephritis (sycotic mesothelial level). Cure direction should be first of nephritis followed by cure of Lungs. This may seem a violation of “more vital to less vital organ” as to a layman the Lungs are positioned above kidneys and are more vital than kidneys but this apparent contradiction becomes easier to understand using the correct meaning of ‘Vital organ’ as per Vijayakar’s concepts. ie Cure progresses from deeper sycotic miasm (thickening of kidney tissue)in Kidneys to shallower psoric miasm (inflammation of lungs).
    4. We heal from the most recent symptoms to those most distant in time – This principle/pattern is generally not disputed so I am not going to take anyone’s time to explain it…it is self explanatory.
    Sorry for posting such a dry subject but I believe that Hering’s Principles all 4 of them are true when understood in terms of layers and miasms. Please refer to Page 127 of Vijayakar as I may not have done enough justice. As an interesting tidbit of info to all to lighten my dry explanation – Herings’ original Lachesis snake is preserved in Academy of Natural Sciences and Lachesis Muta is latin for mute snake, while the lachesis personality is so talkative…What an irony!!! Thanks to all participants although in conclusion, I tend to agree with Dr Robert’s & Dr Malaker’s views. Thanks All, Philip

    • Robert on

      Thanks Philip,

      You have helped support another wonderful view and explanation of “Hering’s Laws”. Very well stated. I am so impressed with the quality of posts here. I am NOT a homeopathic scholar. I am a homeopath. I have gained most of my experience from seeing clients. Even though I share these newsletters which could come in the category of scholarly, I do not write for this reason. I write to share with all of you what I have learned and am still continuing to learn. I do this to share about our school Resonance School of Homeopathy. If you read about us on the website http://www.resonanceschoolofhomeopathy.com I make it very clear we are training homeopaths, not homeopathic scholars. There is nothing that beats experience when it comes to homeopathy.
      I have been blessed with a very great teacher, Vega Rozenberg, who really helped ground me in my ability to see the cases. I have also been blessed to work in very busy clinics seeing over 10,000 client visits in the last
      14 years. I have learned a lot through experience and have made every mistake in the book as well. Peters mock dialogue referring to Robert’s Laws does not impress me at all. I have no agenda other than to inspire and share. I appreciate a good discussion. I do not wish to argue. I believe I have stated my position about Hering’s Law’s above. It is simply that I see them reflected in the healing process of nearly all of my clients who I successfully treat. There is really nothing more for me to say other than I believe that others will see this as well and can use this information as a guide to helping their clients. I think Peter’s fixation on Law and that they must not conflict is where he may be stuck. These “laws” are not fixed. They can appear simultaneously, individually, in random order, and some will never appear. We do NOT get to choose how anyone’s vital force will respond to a remedy. What we are entrusted to do though is observe without prejudice. This is the only way we know what to do next in any case. My observations have proven that the human organism heals in somewhat predictable and observable ways that have been explained by Hering’s Laws. When it is observed time and time again, as it must have been by many masters before us, it became “Law”. I did not create this law but have merely shared my observations about it. Thank you to all of you who have responded with loving support.

      Warmest regards,
      Robert Field

      • Peter Bezemek on

        Well, well, at last we come to a common conclusion, Robert.
        You have written “They can appear simultaneously, individually, in random order, and some will never appear.” which I totally agree with and I have said nothing else throughout the whole discussion. This effectively means that Hering’s laws are not laws in a true sense of the word and therefore useless when it comes to judging the progression of the case to cure or to suppression – because they MAY or MAY NOT appear.

        Despite what you may think, I do not wish to argue, my point is wholly practical and I believe I have expressed my opinions very clearly. I find it unfortunate that hardly anyone except Connie really wanted to come to the core of the matter and listen to the reasoning. If this reflects the degree of “unprejudiced observing” homeopaths apply in when taking their cases, then God help us.

        Do we not all LOVE our little homeopathic laws, rules and theories? It’s so much easier to stick one’s head in the sand then to admit our understanding was flawed, even when the experience slaps us in the face.

        I wish you all the best success in homeopathy, not for your sake, but for the sake of your patients.

        Best regards,
        Peter Bezemek

    • Dr.H.C.Malaker on

      Dear Dr.Philip joseph,thank you for effective explanations that you have made after rendering your valuable time.Your explanation has removed all confusion regarding hering’s law of cure.Hope to see such article written by you in future.I shall be glad if you help me with your email id as i need to discuss with you if you dont feel any problem.My email id is malaker at gmail dot com.Yours sincerely,malaker

    • Connie Trumpf on

      Excellent post Philip. Might I ask concerning your example of the Lungs and Kidney. Is acute nephritis considered psoric mesothelial level and chronic nephritis sycotic mesothelial level? I was under the impression that most “itis'” were psoric, but I can well understand that when an inflammation continues the body seeks to protect itself further by “thickening” …and then we are stepping into sycosis, yes? I am really in the beginning stages of my education so forgive the perhaps…dumb question

      Thanks for any clarification you can offer!
      As for it being a dry subject! Absolutely not IMO :D.

      • Robert on


        Much has been discovered and written about these layers within the New German Medicine that Dr. Hamer has fathered. Most of the disease processes, organs etc have been explained in regards to their development and as well as the reasons for why they become effected due to the biological conflict. It is a very in depth way of looking at health and disease. It dovetails nicely with homeopathy and does not conflict. It is a body of information that is huge though. Also the layers are not explained in homeopathic language of miasm but can be extrapolated. I’m sure you have heard me mention about this in class. A good starter book is Biogeneology Sourcebook by Christial Fleche.

        Thanks for your posts,

  16. Dr.Sarfaraz on

    It is really very useful, Dr. Robert is refereshing the knowledge of Homeopaths.I read his articles very attentively.He should continue such articles in the interest of hoeopathic science.All things Dr.Robert has mentioned in his article are in agreement with my thoughts.Well done Dr. Robert.

    • Connie Trumpf on

      Thank you Robert.. I have the book and have read it and found it really makes sense… I will re-read it and look for the miasmatic similarities 🙂

      • Robert on


        One last thought. In the German New Medicine model all ‘itis is inflammation. Inflammation is usually psoric, but in the German New Medicine model it is usually involved in the healing phase of the disease. During the mental/emotional or Biological conflict the body is recording it in the brain forming a lesion. As long as the conflict exists the brain records this. During this time the associated organ is being effected by micro ulcerations within the associated layer of the organ. But when the conflict is resolved the brain sends the message to repair these ulcerations and inflammation is the result. The body will marshal the appropriate bacteria etc. to create the inflammation which adds cells back to the layer. In many cases this can turn out to be diagnosed as cancer. The severity of the healing response (inflammation to tumors) is equal to the length of time the person is in conflict or the severity of the conflict. Everything the body does is an attempt to heal and bring resolution. It is programmed for survival. Yet sometimes the healing resolution can equal death which is the ultimate resolution. I hope this helps.

        Warmest regards,

      • Connie Trumpf on

        fascinating…thank you Robert. Another book along similar lines as the Biogenealogy book is called “The healing Power of Illness” by Thorwald Dethlefsen. Well worth a read as well

  17. Philip Joseph on

    Dear All: First, to answer Connie – my understanding is that when inner or deeper embryonic layers are affected by sycotic (growths, thickenings etc) or syphylitic miasms(ulcers, tissue destructions etc) we see these under chronic tendencies and not an acute. Example – Chronic Hypertension leading to Athereosclerosis. But an acute Hypertension episode (such as due to a sudden fright)or acute ‘conjunctivitis or acute kidney inflammation’ is psoric. So I think you may be right in all acute ‘itis’ being psoric. I am not very sure myself, I have to still learn from experience. Second to Malakar, I will reply shortly via email. Third, to Dr Robert, thanks for bringing us back to earth from our lofty debate with a clear dose of reality when you talk of your vast clinical experience & cures & candid mistakes too. All my tall research is really beneficial ONLY when it can help cure at least one patient. So I am really humbled by your Clinical experiences (the indisputable proof). To Peter, I say, we can all agree to disagree, perhaps your clinical experiences were different from mine. Who am I to say either one’s experience or logic is superior? To the rest of readers, please contribute to future posts of Resonance school your clinical experiences. Debate is good, Learning is better, & Practical Cure is best. Many fought a good fight, trying to defend Hering and not offend Kent! But now, it is a time for truce, peace, rest and to let the subsconcious or your patient’s experience guide you to the best logic/law/pattern. As for me, I need to break for a Beer!. Just kidding….Good Healing…Philip

    • Connie Trumpf on

      Thanks Philip.

      • Robert on

        Yes! Thank you Philip!!

  18. Dayna on

    Isn’t Homeopathy wonderful?!!!

    In my opinion, ‘Herings Law’is in one sense doctrine and in another sense observational fact and in another sense an ‘idea.’
    Most probably Hahnemann did not really know what he was doing either – as he was discovering homeopathy and was the ‘unpredjudiced observer’ who recorded his results as he went along. The Organon was a work in progress, the findings the ways the body reacts from disease and the results of treatment of illness with homeopathic remedies. That is why there are so many conflicting laws, doctrines and arguments withing Homeopathy.
    What works for one homeopath in their practice may not be what works for another. As Homeopaths we learn what is relevant to ourselves as homeopaths, just as in our Western Culture, some patients come to us for a reason.
    Yes our healing system follows inherent Laws but within these Laws there are many levels.
    So cure isn’t always from above downwards, or from inward to out, and there is not always an aggravation for cure to take place (nor is an aggravation always a good thing – the ideal of cure to heal ‘gently, rapidly and permanently’)but the observable effects of the treatment will fall somewhere between Herings Laws – a set of observances for cure – and the direction the remedy wants to take (also dependant on potency, dose, and how similar the remedy is).
    An interesting discussion that serves to remind us that there are many ‘truths’ and ‘laws’ in homeopathy and that they are all right. Herings Law of cure is like a light flashing at the end of the tunnel, the thing that guides us on our way, but does not restrict us from experiencing other paths along the way – all leading us to the end destination, healing and hopefully cure.
    In Homeopathy

  19. Robert Field on

    Hi Dayna,

    Thanks for your post and I agree wholeheartedly,


  20. mp rao on

    The articles and the cases reported in these columns are quite interesting and educative.I find them to be very useful.May I request you for remedies and advice on treatment for left side swollen testicle of long standing of 59 years aged(baldy and medium built), say about 20 years but without any pain.It shifted from right to left a decade ago or so?
    with regards,
    mp rao

  21. Farhan Nadaf on

    Hello every1, I read the article as well as comments on it too.
    the first thought came into my mind that was “Dr. Hering gave such law or not?” but soon i got the explanation by Dr. Robert, whether its by name or not but it exist even in my short & limited practice saw by myself. & one of my gr8 professor made me understand very well. & it EXIST for sure, with the practical example we CAN PROOVE it. n not coz of contradicting illustrative example but coz of better understanding it into deeper extent, in simplest manner so there vl b no misunderstanding. Esp. thx to my prof.
    n this newsletter that made me understand it very well
    thank u
    Farhan Nadaf

  22. Farhan Nadaf on

    Hello every1,
    here i got something to say that Dr. Hering described his observations as a “law of order” (of symptom expression) in his Preface (12, Appendix 1) to the 1845 American edition of The Chronic Diseases by Samuel Hahnemann. (9, Appendix 2)

  23. Linwood on

    This site was… how ddo I say it? Relevant!! Finally I’ve
    found something which helped me. Cheers!

Leave a Reply to Philip Joseph Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: