Posted by Dr. Jose Guillermo Zamora De La Paz, UAG Medical Doctor, Homeopath by the Institute for Homoeopathic Medicine.
It is essential to have an original conception of Hahnemann miasmatic theory from his own observations to understand the purpose of raising a complete model of chronic diseases. Can not display exactly this legacy, if you only have the highly personal opinions of some authors who have misinterpreted Hahnemann. 
From any of us begin the study of homeopathy, we have instilled in our education that the second “law” to be learned (after similar law) is the law of involution or Hering law.
We are taught that “a chronic healing occurs in the reverse direction from carrying the disease course. That is, current symptoms are the first to disappear, returning the patient to states that had previously submitted. When initial symptoms reappear and heal your illness with such medicine, healing will come. “
“As a corollary, we very often the symptoms will disappear from the top down, from the center to the periphery of most important organ to less important organ.”
Point by point we have:
I-Conversely, in time, the course it has followed the disease.
II-From top to bottom.
III-From the center to the periphery.
IV-important organ to less important organ.
“The item I is the most important of the four, the other three will be subordinated to the first. At the beginning of homeopathic treatment, the above symptoms disappear, which continues up to the primary or initial symptoms. “
Apparently this has caused a conflict from the frustration of many, as it has been considered as a criterion of cure to a set of observations concerning a direction of healing, not always the case . From the available literature by contemporary homeopaths, you realize that there are different positions on the matter, in which a claim is not case law and have only seen a few cases where something happens, and others passing mention a thousand times if case taking, analysis, diagnosis and homeopathic dosage are adequate. 
Many “teachers” of homeopathy, motivated by pre-conceived notions of essentially metaphysical teachings (Swedenborg) claimed that this “Law” Hering is an application that always occur during practice. Kent at second reading of 1900 for the Post-Graduate School of Homœopathics not specify whether this application is for all diseases, acute and chronic, or when including venereal miasms. Here what I find important to say is that Kent was who first gave the title of “law” to a series of observations made by Hering  and that although he coined, is the same Hering who gives credit to Hahnemann having been the first to make such observations of the direction of healing [6, 7] as we can see in the following extracts from Organon (6th. Ed.) and chronic diseases:
- “Rising early symptoms of chronic disease can only occur at the end of treatment when the cure is almost or completely finished.” Organon § 161
- … “Will continue as long as the patient experiences improvement and therefore not present any discomfort that has never had before, during his life.” Organon § 248
- “Among the signs that in all diseases, especially those of an acute nature, principle announced a slight improvement or aggravation is not for everyone perceptible, are the safest and instructions that reveal the mental state of the patient and their behavior. In case there is a relief, albeit very light, it shows a greater degree of wellness, tranquility and enhances the freedom of the mind and spirit is stronger, it verifies a kind of return to the natural state. In the event of aggravation, although very slight, it will have an opposite state previous character withdrawal, despair of mind, pitiable behavior in all its gestures, postures and actions, all of which is easily perceived by through careful observation, but it is difficult to express in words “Organon § 253
- “The old medicine or allopathy … wrongly consider all conditions that occupy the outer parts of the body as purely local, isolated and independent, and believes if any curing has eliminated when using topical requiring the internal condition move elsewhere nobler and more important. “Introduction, Organon
- “… Other times when the remedy was working more smoothly in the local affection, perhaps still recent, exercised a sort of external homeopatismo on local symptom that nature had given birth in the skin to relieve the internal condition, also renewed the latter, to bind to a greater danger, and exposed to the life force, by this local symptom suppression, to produce a more dangerous noblest somewhere. Instead ensuing rebel ophthalmia, deafness, stomach spasms, epileptic seizures, fits of suffocation, seizures, mental illness, etc.. 1 “
- 1 “These are the natural consequences of the suppression of local symptoms in question, allopathic medical consequences that often looks as new diseases and entirely different” Introduction, Organon
- “… Reviewing … all … and checking symptoms so do not suffer from any other new symptoms and that the ancients did not have worsened. If this is the case, and if there has been improvement in the character and mind, is an indication that the drug must have made a positive decrease of the disease, or if not enough time has passed for this to be done, soon will be. “Organon § 255
- “Consequently, I can not advise, for example, local destruction of cancer of the lips or face (the result of a highly developed psora and often linked to syphilis) with arsenical ointment Fray Cosme, not only because This method is very painful, and often fails, but also and especially because such a dynamic environment, although locally the body free of cancerous ulcer, does not diminish the underlying disease, so that the vital force of life are conservative forced to transferring the focus of the great evil that exists inside a nobler part (as in all metastases) and thereby produce blindness, deafness, dementia, suffocating asthma, dropsy, apoplexy, so. “Organon § 205 Footnote.
- “There are rare cases, the disease calls threatening bodily existence as lung suppuration, altering any other noble organ, or in some other acute, as puerperal fever, etc., In which increasing Quickly symptom intensity moral degenerates into madness disease, a kind of melancholy or mania, to which physical symptoms are no longer dangerous and improve almost to perfect health or rather decrease to such an extent that their presence faded … “Organon § 216 Footnote.
- “… When the Psora raise its head again, either with the same symptoms as before, or the like, but gradually more annoying than the first, or developed symptoms in the most noble of the organism” (Chronic Disease, Samuel Hahnemann Par.: 153, page 140, translated by Dr. Jose Antonio Ugartechea G.)
- “Only when the old symptoms are eradicated or very much diminished by the latest and previous medications, start to emerge again, for a few days, or are significantly aggravated, then it is time to give a Homoeopathically dose as appropriate.” (Chronic Disease, Samuel Hahnemann, Par.: 219, page 167, by Dr. Jose Antonio Ugartechea G.)
- “The recent symptoms that have appeared in the chronic diseases that have been left to themselves, (and thus have not been aggravated by wrong medical treatments) are always the first to go on an anti-psoric, but the oldest and disorders those who have been most constant and unchanged, among which are the constant local disorders, are the last to disappear, and this is only achieved when all permanent disorders have disappeared and health is restored on all orders almost completely. “(Chronic Disease, Samuel Hahnemann, Par.: 245, pages 184-185, Translated by Dr. Jose Antonio Ugartechea G.)
From here it seems important to state that the direction of healing should not be taken as law for determining the cure of chronic diseases, nor as dogmas that must be taken with blind faith come from the word of a great teacher [3 , 8], but as data coming from the inductance , ie, observations and experience gathered by Hahnemann, that without being able to deny , they should not have a declarative connotation that are taken as a event that always occurs in all cases (law). (See point 8 of the conclusion)
Once you have reviewed many cases of Hahnemann, we have observed that in many (not all), when a patient could not be cured, then the analysis would be on anti-psoric remedy, not with the intention of prescribe based on a miasma, but the anti-psoric fell in automatic selection from similimum itself (the same goes for the other two chronic miasms). Is thus evident that healing always cases determined by the similarity of the chosen remedy for this disease and NO by the fact that the remedy was anti-psoric [10, 11]. The usefulness of all observations in the direction that leads to a cure is to understand that all deployments are symptomatic at different times during homeopathic treatment are not independent or separate, but are related to the same disease, so that often (not always) makes it possible to determine the course, course and prognosis that has a certain disease, that is, whether it is curable or incurable, or if you approach to healing. Hahnemann always sought a model to explain the observation of symptoms of chronic disease he saw. Your understanding and comprehension of infective agents along with the nature of the disease, led him to fill the gap in knowledge of chronicity when it releases the connection of all points in the etiology of the disease, since infection to different stages in visual reactional dimensional modern medicine still used for some diseases.
However, I have to say from a critical position, as Hahnemann himself demanded of all homeopathic , the major flaw in his model is the lack of a clear demarcation between a post-primary data observed during the first reaction which is taken as the origin of the disease, the primary symptom of itchy rash from the Psora which takes its name and whose presence indicates that the (Psora) has settled into the individual or has been cured when presented from a reverse direction before applying Similia. From a single statement, it is not definable sense in intensity, that is, if it was always observed such symptoms or only often enough to be a fact that confirms that a cure or remedy cured because it was anti-psoric . Being a “Law”, this itchy rash so would invariably present even during healing. However, although this inconsistency still remains to determine the onset of psoricidad both the disease and the remedy, in other paragraphs Hahnemann frequency intensity clarifies saying that such primary skin eruption is not final nor necessary. 
In short, about the direction in the therapeutic healing of chronic diseases, we can conclude the following from the compiled’s own observation and experience:
1.-No person shall deliver this address all healing.
2. – The reverse order of progression occurs occasionally in cases where symptoms have been deleted, or where they have disappeared spontaneously, or where previous symptoms were apparently “resolved” allopathically, ie by any other means.
3.-Not all cases will be cured by a single remedy, most need up to 3 or 4 changes of remedy.
4.-Few cases are cured with a single dose and / or a single remedy.
5.-Every case is “moving” in individualized toward healing.
6.-The best health information to which we have to take our patient are the same data as the basis of their previous health serve us as a reference. Hahnemann himself put his health condition relative to collect data miasmatic disease. 
7.-The best evidence to know that a patient has eased or healing approaches are:
- Note that their mood, their spheres of consciousness in space-and time-instead, tend toward improvement even in very mild. .
- His face: facial expression, gestures, postures and actions, weight, hydration status, color of their skin (outer habitus) returns to its pre-illness.
- Involution of his injuries, but when he has gone to truly homeopathic treatment, ruling out suppression.
- The “normalization” of the results of laboratory and, of subjective and objective data of physical examination, which guide us to nobler organs are functioning as they should, and / or has removed the miasma infective (eg , microorganisms).
8.-The observed data by Hahnemann in relation to the direction of healing should be classified as a rule (rule) in the context of a theory and not a law. [14, 17, 18, 19]
9.-not always a given group of symptoms characterized as a chronic miasma, require a specific remedy for this miasma. Many times if a remedy Anti-Syphilitic (Mercury) or an anti-sycotic remedy (Thuja) fits the current collective symptoms by similarity, act curatively for those symptoms are present even when a Psora, like an anti-psoric acts curatively in any of the venereal miasms. 
10.-When the signs and symptoms of a case are properly embonados remedy each time  is required, and remedies relations  are used properly, will eliminate the susceptibility to infection and miasmatic therefore be resolved chronicity of the disease-reaction can be confirmed by then cured. One need not know whether the remedy is Anti-X, as it usually will fall into the correct category alone.
The Theory of Chronic Disease According To Hahnemann George Dimitriadis.
“Hering’s Law: law, rule, or dogma” by Andre Saine in the Winter issue of Simillimum, Vol VI no. April 1993.
 To those readers without prejudice is recommended to compare the observations of Hahnemann with the following authors:
- Observations have misinterpreted Hahnemann
- Allen, JH: …………. The Chronic Miasma
- Dhawale, ML: …… Principles and Practice of Homoeopathy
- Kent, JT: Lectures on Homoeopathic Philosophy ……………
- Ortega, P.: Notes on Miasms ……………
- Roberts, HA: …….. Principles and Art of Cure
- Han (at least partly) correctly represented observations Hahnemann
- Close, S.: ……………. The Genius of Homoeopathy
- Choudhury, H.: ……. Indications of Miasm
- Dudgeon, RE: ……. Lectures on the Theory and Practice of Homoeopathy.
- Sarkar, BK: Essays on Homoeopathy …………
- Organon of medicine with comments
- Tyler, ML: ………… Hahnemann’s Conception of Chronic Disease as by Parasitic Micro-Organisms
- Kanjilal, JN: Writings on Homoeopathy ……… (2 volumes)
- Other books to compare:
- Hughes, R.: …………. A Manual of pharmacodynamics, pp.839-842
- Leeser, O.: ………….. Textbook of Homoeopathic Materia Medica, pp.31-40
Sure to compare *** is required to have read and understood completely, as works of Hahnemann: Organon, Chronic Disease and minor writings.
 Excerpts taken from the New Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia, Zepeda Luis Castañeda, 2000, Pages. 12, 20
 Wikipedia: An Act are natural phenomena that recur constantly under certain conditions.
Webster Dictionary: A law is defined as the sequence of events that occur with unvarying uniformity.
A rule or standard allows exceptions.
A dogma is based on an established opinion.
An opinion is an idea that is not verifiable, and that neither can be verified but not falsified.
 David Little and Andre Saine have written in detail about:
David Little – Hahnemann’s Direction of Cure and Hering’s Laws.
David Little: Hering’s Preface to the Chronic Diseases (1845)
“Hering’s Law: law, rule, or dogma” by Andre Saine in the Winter issue of Simillimum, Vol VI no. April 1993.
 In 1911, Kent formalizes these observations made by Hahnemann and Hering as a “law” in an article written in the first volume of the Transactions of the Society of Homœopathicians called “Correspondence of Organs, and the Directorate of Healing”. Kent says:
“Hering was the first to introduce the law of address symptoms: From the inside out, from top to bottom, in reverse order of their appearance. That does not happen in the writings of Hahnemann. Spoken about as Hering’s Law. There is very little of this literature homœopática law, except the observation of symptoms ranging from top to the extremities, rashes that appear on the skin and mucous membranes downloads or ulcers that appear in the legs and internal symptoms have disappeared.
Nonspecific information exists in the literature, except as indicated in the lectures on the philosophy of the Graduate School. “
 Kent and Swedenborg: Julian Winston in response to the article by Shirley Reischman, Author: Julian Winston. Hpathy Ezine, May, 2004. Julian Winston answers:
“The way Hering reached its” direction of cure “was simply through observation. This is described by him in the preface he wrote for the first American edition of Hahnemann’s Chronic Diseases. This is the only place where this paper was published Hering. In; Hering says that “Each homeopathic physician must have observed that improvement * when pain * takes place from top to bottom, and in diseases, from the inside out.” Then mentions, “…. The most important organs are relieved first , the condition happens in the order in which organs are involved, the more important is relieved first, then the least, and the skin at the end. “
In 1865 Hering wrote an article in the “Monthly Hahnemannian” which reiterates the ideas of direction, giving credit to Hahnemann to be the first to have made the “general comments”. In 1875 in “Analytical Therapeutics” Hering says that only patients who have “freed of their symptoms in the reverse order of development” can actually be cured. All this comes through observation of patients. Nothing comes from an idea based on pre-existing Swedenborg.
Of all the homeopaths were Swedenborgians, only Kent, who was merged religion with homeopathy-the rest of them remained more or less apart, and that included Hering. His “healing direction” gave from observation and not their religion Swedenborgiana. “
 In 1845, Hering published an excerpt from his essay “Guide to the Progressive Development of Homoeopathy” in the Introduction of the American version of Chronic Diseases.
 Chronic Disease, Samuel Hahnemann, a footnote to Paragraph 221, pages 168.169.
“However this theorem is true not recognized among those who should understand, nor between those who would ask a blind faith, I demand that no faith at all, and not demand that anyone should understand: it is sufficient to be a fact and nothing more. Experience alone declares it and think more on experience than on my own understanding “
 Chronic Disease, Samuel Hahnemann, a footnote to paragraph 100, page 111.
“It is easy to doubt things that can not be put before our eyes, but certainly does not prove anything in itself, recalling the ancient rule of logic: Denial is not to prove.”
 During the prescription of a drug that eliminates the symptoms of one or more of its three designated chronic diseases, Hahnemann remedies were assigned to anti-names like syphilis or sycosis or anti-anti-psoric. However, there is no evidence (from cases) proving that he prescribed based on a miasma.
 § 7 Organon, 6th. Edition.
“Now, as a disease, which has no obvious exciting cause or supportive, to remove (cause occasional), 54 we can not perceive anything but the symptoms should (taking into account the possibility of a miasma and circumstances accessory) they only be the means by which the disease requests and indicates the appropriate remedy to ease, and further, all of the symptoms of this reflected image outside the inner core of the disease, namely the condition of the life force, should be the main and only means by which the disease discloses the remedy you need, the only thing that determines the choice of the most appropriate remedy, and so, in a word, the whole (** *) of symptoms should be the primary and only real thing that the doctor must deal with in each case and remove disease through his art, so that the disease transformed into health. “
 Chronic Disease, Samuel Hahnemann, the Par Footnote.: 88, page 64, translated by Dr. Jose Antonio Ugartechea G.
“It’s easier for me than for many hundreds of others to discover and recognize the signs of Psora, both when latent and still asleep inside, as when it is grown considerable chronic disease, by careful comparison of the health status of all these people with my own, as a rare case, as I have never been afflicted with Psora, and therefore from birth, yet so far in my eightieth year, I have been free of the (minor and major) disorders listed Here, and later, however, I have been generally very likely to acquire acute epidemic diseases and have been exposed to many thousands of mental effort and vexations of spirit “
Organon § 6, 6th Edition
“The observer devoid of prejudice and well aware of the futility of transcendental speculations which can not be confirmed by experience, to each individual case of disease-only notes Through its power of penetration exercised full-of health changes your body and mind (morbid phenomena, accidents, symptoms) which can be perceived externally by means of the senses, ie he only warns deviations based on the previous health status now take up the individual patient, which are felt by the patient, confirmed by those who live with him and observed by the physician. All these perceptible signs represent the disease in its entirety or whether, as a whole, constitute the real picture and the only conceivable, of disease. “
 As I took a Case Dr. Hahnemann (Case 1) by Dr. Guillermo Zamora
 In referring to observations that occur as a rule, I mean dataset that are seen with certain patterns of behavior, but that does not always happen. See reference [17, 18 and 19]
 § 153 Organon
 “The Relationship of Remedies” Von Boenninghausen. Translated by Dr. Guillermo Zamora.
 “Hypothetical Inductive Method”, by Dr. Guillermo Zamora.
“Scientificity of Homoeopathy”, by George Dimitriadis, translated by Dr. Guillermo Zamora.
 Chronic Disease, Samuel Hahnemann, the Par Footnote.: 22, page 10, translated by Dr. Jose Antonio Ugartechea G.
“Observations and assistance provided by the anti-psoric remedies that were added during these eleven years, I have always shown how often this source are not only modest, but the most severe and very severe chronic ‘
 “Even in the rash that follows immediately after infection, no such unalterable constancy and persistence on the skin as showing the chancre and condylomata about where you come first … That’s why the doctor should not waste of time even with the original eruption … “(Chronic Disease, Samuel Hahnemann, Par.: 139, 140, page 131-132, Translated by Dr. Jose Antonio Ugartechea G.)