ADLER, UC; CESAR, AT; ADLER, MS; ALVES, A; GAROZZO, EN; GALHARDI, WMP; PADULA, AE; SOUZA, IC.
Abstract
Introduction: the “laws of cure” for chronic diseases have been Hering´s most divulged work throughout generations of homeopaths. Kent endorsed Hering´s laws and their ultimate progression up to skin lesions, and included “severe aggravations, revival of past symptoms and eliminations” among the expected results during the homeopathic treatment of chronic diseases. Notwithstanding Hering and Kent have claimed to be Hahnemann´s followers, the cure standards established by them seem quite harmful and contrary to Hahnemann´s gentle restoration of health ideal. Objectives: to ascertain if Hering and Kent based their arguments and procedures on Hahnemann´s principles when inferring and observing those harmful cure standards. Methodology: Analysis of Hering´s propositions in behalf of his laws of cure and Kent’s remarks about severe homeopathic aggravations compared to Hahnemann´s writings. Conclusions:
1) Hering’s “laws of cure” cannot be justified upon Hahnemann´s premises, once according to Hahnemann internal and external symptoms should improve together, without a specific direction order. The only convergence point between Hahnemann and Hering’s laws is the observation that the latest symptoms that have been added to a chronic disease are always the first to yield in an antipsoric treatment.
2) Misdirecting Hahnemann´s recommendations, Kent was careless with dosage; admitted as pathway to cure severe and long homeopathic aggravations, return of all past symptoms, exteriorizations and eliminations, which were considered by Hahnemann as organism defences against dose excess or incorrect prescriptions.
3) Hering and Kent did not follow Hahnemann´s principles and the harmful cure they observed was probably a result of their own procedures in Homeopathy, deviating from the objective of gentle restoration of health.