Miasms - Remedy Selection

[Simon]

The question could better be put without miasms can we have
Viruses,bacteria and other microorganisms?

regards
Simon King


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[J Lucas]

When the new and stronger disease comes it tends to overtake the weaker,
other disease, but there might still be sx present of the other weaker
disease and these might need to be put aside as the more dominant disease is
present, especially if it is dangerous and life threatening. In this
instance you might not find a simillimum for the whole case, i.e. the
dominant disease AND the receding disease. If the weaker disease has receded
considerably there might be too few sx to use.

But the new disease might not be the stronger of the two diseases but either
way if you cannot find a simillimum for the whole case (because the sx of
the weaker disease are too unreliable) you have to treat the more dangerous
of the 2 diseases. Always bear in mind what needs to be cured.

This should really only ever apply to cases when there are 2 dissimilar
diseases present and it shouldn't really be encouraging unnecessary layered
prescribing.

I think I answered your point about complex cases in another post.

Best wishes, Joy

http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
on 14/11/04 6:50, Nader Moradi at mn0021@issa2000.net wrote:

Dear Joy,

would you pls elucidate this part of your mail:"(I.e. diminish to the
background to
a certain degree) the new disease. In this instance you would want to treat
the most dominant and/or dangerous but keep in mind the sx of the other.""

when the old strong disease repels the new one then how we must keep in mind
the sx of the other?do you mean sx of old disease or new one?

again you didn't say in complex diseases that how you select your remedy?

Rgds,
Nader

[Piet Guijt]

The famous chicken/egg discussion.

Piet

[Simon]

Which famous Chicken was that?
regards
Simon King


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Piet Guijt]

It was MC Chicken

Piet

[Nader Moradi]

Dear Simon,

I don't believe in such definitions as Psora is under-function or sycosis is over-function and etc.
I also agree that case taking is very important in selecting correct simillimum but the question is that how the knowledge of miasms can help us in finding remedy.
In your illustrated example,as I understood,the miasm concept is useless and we must discard it away!!!!!!!!!but as we all know Hahnemann has quoted that "as Homeopathy is a revolution in treating patient so miasm theory is also revolution in Homeopathy" then we must pay close attention to miasm,but how??
This is the question that I am looking forward to answers of other colleagues.

Kind Regards,
Nader

[Piet Guijt]

Finrod wrote;
Hi Finrod, Minutus,
This mail I send some time ago to another discussiongroup.
I think it aswers your question.

A constitutional approach is the individual approach, but miasmatic
prescribing is a disease group approach.
Miasmatic prescribing has to do with layers, which means you are dividing
the whole into parts.
As long this is done according to the dominating miasm this is OK and there
is no danger of suppression.
Miasms are nothing more then fundamental constitutional reaction patterns,
but also individual expressions.
Layers always use a certain part or level of the constitution to express the
disease, the disease picture is build up as a combination of the deeper
individual disturbance and the characteristics (positive or negative!)of the
involved level.
That's why we must always have a connection between the symptoms and the
characteristics we use for our prescription.
This is also the reason why an anti-miasmatic remedy must have certain
qualities to cover this picture and level.

For a true constitutional prescription we can use all characteristics/
miasms, because the whole constitution is in use to express the disease. On
this level all remedies are tri-miasmatic.
This means that also the 'normal' and 'positive' non-diseased
characteristics of the person are important and are part of the picture.
In fact those are the most important, because they represent the real
individual and not the layered deviation (symptoms).
This approach is not just looking at the rough constitutional 'structure' of
the person, because this would also result in a limited, layered
prescription.
So miasmatic and constitutional prescribing look at disease from a different
angle and are complementary. The vital force will show us the road that must
be taken.
In practice the difference is not black/white, and we must be aware that
even a 'deep' constitutional remedy at the end turns out to be a layer, and
a complementary remedy is necessary.
Kind regards, Piet

[Piet Guijt]

Joy wrote;

but it will always be the simillimum which
cures, the rx which fits the case. Whether a remedy is considered deep or
superficial, cure is always profound.

Hi Joy,

I agree, but is this really the simmilimum, or a simile, a satellite remedy
we consider to be the simillimum for this moment, but not the individual
constitutional simillimum, covering both the now and the past? We must
prescribe on the totality, but we cannot deny we neglect symptoms for our
prescription. In fact a person can only have one disease, the patient is
diseased, or the person is healthy. A layer or miasm classification is a
practical approach and the 'disease' which is most on the foreground,
represents also the active (or combination) miasm.

Regards, Piet

[Shannon Nelson]

If I am prescribing for a chronic situation, then no, I would not give a
remedy that did not reflect the active miasm. (I should say, not on
purpose!) The few lists about miasmatic correspondence are definitely not
complete, so if I were pursuing this line of thought I would make that
judgement on basis of my understanding of X's overall picture and whether
*that* showed correspondence with miasm Y. If it doesn't, that means that
the symptom correspondence is a superficial one and tho it might palliate or
suppress, presumably won't cure the case.

Another way that I *think* accomplishes the same purpose, but without
specifically looking for the "miasm", is just to see how well the overall
processes and character and nature of the remedy and the case match.

If I am prescribing for an acute, same basic thinking, except it wouldn't
occur to me to look up miasm correspondence on a straightforward acute
remedy. I assume the match would be there, if sufficient information is
found, but OTOH a remedy for a mild-to-moderate acute doesn't need to have
the same depth of correspondence, since the condition is self-limiting
anyway and the body will finish its work even with only mild-to-moderate
help. (Obviously this might not be the case with a severe acute or an
already weak or very sensitive patient!)

Shannon

on 11/14/04 12:02 AM, Nader Moradi at mn0021@issa2000.net wrote:

[d_barbara_hamilton]

Hi,

Well, I'm between a rock and a hard place I think - as I'm sure you are
both correct for the way you practice. I was taught that if the rx fits,
give that, but that if it didn't completely ameliorate (or cure) after
repetition, or got 'stuck', then the blockage removal should be miasmatic.
However, from my own experience, just repeating the rx, or moving to
the new presenting layer, seems to have the same effect.
It's a tricky one ...

Best, Barbara

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Piet Guijt wrote:
or
individual
must
our