Miasmatic Repertory

[J Lucas]

Perhaps the word "tainted" is better than "infected" when referring to
miasms.

Best, Joy

http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
on 16/11/04 14:43, Robert&Shannon Nelson at shannonnelson@tds.net wrote:

Thanks Chris, a nice summary!
I stand corrected on my statement that Hahnemann wasn't aware of microbes,
but I don't think that alters my main point--what benefit is there in
talking about a flu "miasm" versus simply a "flu"? Do you disagree with me
that, in general, when homeopaths speak of a "miasm", they are talking about
a "chronic miasm", and that if they are referring to a communicable disease
they will just say that? (I realize that we *do* sometimes use terms such
as "flu miasm"; but if someone is talking about "curing the miasm", would
you not assume it was a *chronic miasm* they were talking about?)
Shannon

on 11/16/04 12:19 AM, Chris Gillen at chrisgillen@optusnet.com.au wrote:
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Nader Moradi]

Flue miasm is acute but Tubercular or sycosis in chronic one!!!!!!!!!

Nader

[Nader Moradi]

Hi Shannon,

Knowing sings&symptoms and also nature of infectious diseases have many practical point in selecting true simillimum.By studying nature of infectious diseases one can find that which one can be chronic miasm or acute one.For example if one studies Hepatitis A, he/she can find that it can not be chronic miasm,then when one has a patient with a history of Hepatitis A,then he can find that signs&symptoms of his/her patient can not be due to Hepatitis A dynamism but if we study Hepatitis B,we can find that it is Chronic then if our patient has a history of it therefore although according to lab data our patient may be is only HBsAg positive but we as a homeopath know that Hepatitis B is chronic and some of our patient signs and symptom can be due to Hepatitis B then our patient has one more miasm(it may be Latent,Dormant,Active)and we must be aware not mingle all symptoms in finding true simillimum or when the other symptoms of patient become more dominant then one can guess other miasm becomes active.
Of course there are many ways that we can use it in our practice by studying infectious diseases that I think it can not be discussed and elucidate in this mailing list.

Kind Regards,
Nader

[Nader Moradi]

Dear Shannon,
Sankaran has created theme for his miasms classification but studying remedies,for example for drawing picture of his psora miasm he has compared Sulph with psorinum but Hahn has not done this and on the contrary he first has studied psora then classified the remedies.,in Sankaran method one can study for example Lyc with psorinum and then create a new theme which will be different than sankaran psora picture,then Sankaran's psora can not be equal to hahnemann's one and etc.In Hahnemann method one must study natural dynamisms then classified remedies based on nature of dynamism but in sankaran it differs.
Of course there are other differences that you can find from studying sankaran's works.

Nader

[Nader Moradi]

Dear Shannon,
Although saying "Flue Miasm" or "Flue" may not has any benefit but suppose that one error in the beginning has many many errors at the end.For example Kent once has done wrong and said there is not differences between Dose &Potency and High potency means small dose!!!!!!!!!!!
Even now there are homeopaths how think as Kent thought!!!!!!, I don't want to start a new discussion about Dose& Potency,pls do not send email about it.
Or (I don't know how has said sycosis is due to gonorrhea but now many Homeopaths speak about gonorrhea in referring to Sycosis!!!!!!!!!)
Recently I have begun to study about Gonorrhea and although now I can not say confidently but in my opinion gonorrhea can not be chronic miasm.

Best Regards,

Nader

[Shannon Nelson]

Exactly, and Hahnemann's work on miasms was concerned with chronic miasms,
not acute ones. Acute "miasms" he simply treated with acute remedies.

Which goes back to my question whether there is really any benefit in the
present to using the term "miasm" when one is talking about an infectious
disease? Why not use "miasm" to mean "chronic miasm" (since that *is* the
way it is commonly used, and the term "miasm" has fallen into disuse with
respect to contagious/infectious diseases), and simply say "infectious
disease" if that is what one means?

Shannon
on 11/16/04 12:50 PM, Nader Moradi at mn0021@issa2000.net wrote:

[Shannon Nelson]

Thanks Chris,

I want to follow up on your and Nader's points (and will re-read the pages
you mention); it'll have to wait until my time's freed up, but I'll get
there!
Thanks,
Shannon

on 11/16/04 9:44 PM, Chris Gillen at chrisgillen@optusnet.com.au wrote:

[Nader Moradi]

Thanx Chris for beautiful elucidation.
Without Miasm theory,how one can understand that his case is flare up of miasm or acute epidemic one?or How he can find that when he must change his remedy?or how not intermingle all sign&symptoms of the patients,I have seen that esp in migraine cases some of Homeopaths intermingle sign&symptoms of headache attack with the other symptoms of the patient.If we study Ken's lecture on Nat-s regarding treating Asthma cases ,we notice that as Kent was treating only attacks of the patient therefore his selected remedies didn't helped only for a time.But after understanding miasm! he prescribed Nat-s and could treat asthma case.of course it was not because that Nat-s is antisycotic(as he said in his lecture) but nat-s was suitable for the case in between attacks.
Kind Regards,
Nader

[andyh]

Chris Gillen wrote:
Chris G wrote:
))))) Dear Chris. This and info from your other posts--which I have read avidly for several years now--are essential education to those of us who have not yet read all of Hahnemann's material; or those who have and require teachers like yourself to underscore and elucidate it. Thank you.

======
Chris wrote:
)))) Miasma was the term Hahnemann chose to denote the spirit-like energetic entity which conveys or maintains disease either in an acute, chronic, or inherited sense.

It is *irrelevant* that Hahnemann made no reference to one of the derivations of the term miasma regarding the association of swamp emanations with Malaria. That is simply the derivation of the word. You have oversimplified the connotation of "noxious gases" as Hahnemann employed it. Yet (elsewhere) you clearly understand that miasms are an etheric emanation--clearly noxious.

If you refer to mention of the definition of the term miasm in my post in this thread, then will respond here to point out that "noxious gases" on the *material level* are not the entire point of the meaning of the word--particularly and expressly this is the case in Hahnemann's usage of it, as I think you will agree. Assuming that the translation into english of whatever word in german Hahnemann used which was translated as"miasma" and forever became that word for us who inherited homeopathy---then it should be pointed out that Hahnemann *chose* that term for a reason.

The reason was that "miasma" CONVEYS the meaning that--since the life force which animates all flesh on this planet is nonelectromagnetic; outside of the classical thermodynamic laws; etheric; dynamic; spirit-like; and thus nonmaterial-----then so must ALSO be any *derangement/dysfunction* of life force. Hahnemann, sometime between 1810 and 1828 chose the term miasma ("vaporous noxious exhalation" by definition) because it conveyed that disease was based on something *nonmaterial*. With no more precise terminology available, miasma conveys the meaning very well Anyone who has
worked intimately in psychic healing can attest to having sensed a bolus of malevolent or deranged energy, and it is a palpable noxious bundle of air like wind or fog--and sometimes has a thermal component.

The reference to malarial transmission is merely part of the understanding of the usage and derivation of the word. Coincidentally, Hahnemann discovered homeopathic resonance while testing the mechanism of a malarial palliative. But I did NOT intend to imply that he himself had a simplistic understanding of the term miasma. Obviously, he did not---the nonmaterial connotation of swamp vapor would be what he would have intended to refer to by using the term in that context. Hahnemann chose the term--I gave the definition. Please don't equate the literal of the reference I gave
to be the actual meaning of the word as in Hahnemann's context. Noxious etheric medium IS like a noxious vapourous exhalation. All language is an analogic representation of that which it purports to identify. Thus Hahnemann chose "miasma" to indicate the transmissible taint which allows contagion and compromise of immunity and function.

========
Chris wrote:
He used the popular term "miasm" but
clearly included in that definition, the invisible pathogen, which is
In his Cholera essay he clearly describes the presence of the pathogen
necessary to the disease, the conditions which support its proliferation,
its mode of transmission from one person to another, the fact that one
person may already have immunity, and the way the microorganism ultimately
loses its virulence as more people become less susceptible. In other words,
a complete epidemiological study. http://www.minutus.org/propagation.htm
))))))))) Hahnemann was apparently as usual WAY ahead of the curve as identifying "animalcules" as possible disease vectors and thank you for your respected opinion that he fully recognized their involvement with life force derangements--which was news to me.

Yes, Leewenhouk had already posited "animalcules":
"...in 1677, a student from the medical school at Leiden, Johan Ham, brought him a specimen ostensibly of semen in which Ham himself had found small animals with tails, which Leeuwenhoek now observed as well (5). Leeuwenhoek resumed his own observations and in his own semen—acquired, he stressed, not by sinfully defiling himself but as a natural consequence of conjugal coitus—observed a multitude of "animalcules," less than a millionth the size of a coarse grain of sand and with thin, undulating transparent tails (6)..."
))))) But in Hahnemann's time Pasteur had not yet engendered the popularization of a "germ theory"--this did not happen until the 1880's:

"...In the mid-1860s, the French silk industry was seriously threatened by a disease that killed silkworms and Pasteur was commissioned by the government to investigate the disease. He announced in 1868 that he had found a minute parasite that infects the silkworms, and recommended that all infected silkworms be destroyed. His advice was followed and the disease eliminated. This stimulated his interest in infectious diseases and, from the results of his previous work on fermentation, spontaneous generation, and the silkworm disease, Pasteur developed the germ theory of disease.
This theory was probably the most important single medical discovery of all time, because it provided both a practical method of combating disease by disinfection and a theoretical foundation for further research.

Continuing his research into disease, in 1881 Pasteur developed a method for reducing the virulence of certain pathogenic micro-organisms. By heating a preparation of anthrax bacilli he attenuated their virulence but found that they still brought about the full immune response when injected into sheep. Using a similar method, Pasteur then inoculated fowl against chicken cholera, following the work of Edward Jenner (who first vaccinated against cowpox in 1796).

In 1882 Pasteur began what proved to be his most spectacular research: the prevention of rabies. He demonstrated that the causative micro-organism (actually a virus, although the existence of viruses was not known at that time) infects the nervous system and then, using the dried tissues of infected animals, he succeeded in obtaining an attenuated form of the virus suitable for the inoculation of human beings. The culmination of this work came on 6 July 1885, when Pasteur used his vaccine to save the life of a young boy who had been bitten by a rabid dog. The success of
this experiment brought Pasteur even greater acclaim and led to the establishment of the Pasteur Institute in 1888..."

======
Chris wrote:
))))) Thank you for this.
))))) Well said.
))))) Well said. I would add, however, that Psora, the hydra-headed umbrella, is probably a catch-all which begged further differentiation--and which Hahnemann did not have either the time nor the resources to undertake. Psora is the name he gave to everything not encompassed by syphilis and sycosis. He identified Leprosy as a precursor to Psora but did not characterize it--perhaps you can tell me if he also discussed either Tuberculosis or Cancer (I seem to recall characterization of these only came well after 1843).

=======
Nader wrote:

Sankaran has created theme for his miasms classification but studying remedies,for example for drawing picture of his psora miasm he has
compared Sulph with psorinum but Hahn has not done this and on the contrary he first has studied psora then classified the remedies.,in
Sankaran method one can study for example Lyc with psorinum and then create a new theme which will be different than sankaran psora
picture,.....

))))) IMO Psora is and was used as a convenient resort to everything not yet explained by other miasm categories can be seen in one sense as a "cop out" to the limitations of Hahnemann's time and what he had not life duration to be able to accomplish. The benefit of inspiration and computer database analysis of known medicines facilitates this kind of differentiation when the uncategorized genre of derangement makes itself known by the patients. Traditional Psora is probably a category which will diminish over time because in many cases previously considered Psora, OTHER
infectious origin of an inherited chronic syndrome will be identified by equating signs, symptoms and themes with a prior causation and type of disease from empirical observation of cases. The process by which Sankaran does this identification of secondary syndrome with original infectious agent of a previous generation is similar if not identical to Hahnemann's process 1810-1828 in originally identifying the concept of a contagious energy which is either self-limiting (ACUTE MIASM) or engrafts (CHRONIC MIASM), and if engrafted is transmitted to further generations.

What it looks to me lke Sankaran is doing is identifying a type of patient that doesnt fit in an existing miasm and then using a set of actual cases to posit the themes, signs, and symptoms of a miasm that could account for those cases. Hahnemann associated cutaneous ulcers that looked like tertiary syphilis---with a syphilis that had been aquired by the patient NOT in the *present* life, but which had been transmitted to them from the parents.

How are these processes different such that Sankaran's deductions are erroneous? And *which* Sankaran miasms are the offenders, in your opinion, and why.

=====
Nader wrote:
then Sankaran's psora can not be equal to hahnemann's one and etc

))))) Psora IMO was a catch-all category, and therefore Hahnemann's Psora *cannot* be equivalent to Sankaran's Psora. Sankaran's Psora would be by definition a subset of a larger category previously called "hydra headed". Quite possibly Sankaran's Typhoid, Acute, Ringworm, and Malaria miasms are also subsets of Hahnemann's Psora.

======
Nader wrote:
.In Hahnemann method one must study natural dynamisms then
classified remedies based on nature of dynamism but in sankaran it differs.

))))) My sense is that Sankaran is examining the dynamisms of the clients first, and that is what inspires his notion that the observed syndromes have not yet been categorized miasmatically. That Sankaran uses materia medica of rx employed in certain miasms to assist with defining or explaining the miasm does not mean that the original basis is other than empirical observation. Perhaps, but so far you have not convinced me. One thing that is clear is that the miasms that Sankaran posits are more subtle. Even in Hahnemann's time without the onslaught of suppression we have
now, miasms which can be identified mainly on subtle psychological factors would have been *very difficult* to define.

All the miasms we inherited had more gross characteristics in present time:
psora--itching skin expressions
sycosis--warts and hydrogenous joints
syphilis--suicide and mental pathology

Leprosy---had not been categorized well by Hahnemann

Later
TB--wasting diseases, respiratory diseases
Cancer--moles, neoplasms

Of the miasms that Sankaran has so far added
Typhoid--a febrile disease
Acute--a temporal disease (eg accidents, sudden manifestations--energy which attracts such incidents and fast-paced diseases)
Ringworm--cutaneous and systemic disease
Malaria--febrile disease

ONLY ringworm has gross characteristics that one could very easily connect with the disease from which the miasm originated.

======
Nader wrote:
Of course there are other differences that you can find from studying sankaran's works.

Difference from Hahnemann ALONE as logical point does not and should not mean "incorrect". I agree Hahnemann was a scientist nonpareil, and reliable. But the miasmatic theory was a WORK IN PROGRESS. I enjoyed reading your expositions in comparing Hepatitis A and B as acute and chronic, respectively. I would appreciate it, and think the whole group would, if you would further discuss your findings and knowledge of any miasms not commonly discussed and their self limiting or chronic nature.

=======
Question: Influenza (in a never been well since patient) has engrafted on the organism. Can influenza influence the gametes and be passed on as a miasm, and if not, why not??
========
I really think that homeopathy will benefit from further in-depth work on miasmatic categorization. It may differ from Hahnemann in Psora, but that is because Psora was multi-pronged as Hahnemann pointed out. It was multipronged IMO because it included many other as-yet undifferentiated component miasms. We are at the point of refining and further differentiation. Do you agree? Disagree?

I have used Sankaran's miasmatic information. Initially skeptical, I am provisionally convinced on at least Typhoid and Malaria---by RESULTS by remedies that he had put in those categories for clients that had those diseases earlier in their lives--and could well have had the subtle psychological syndromes he identifies for those miasms. But those psychological characteristics alone were NOT sufficient for me to use as indicators, at least yet--while I continue to get familiar with Sankaran's system and continue to test it.

I think Sankaran has only scratched the surface of inherited chronic miasms. For example, Rajan does not include hydrophobia nor AIDS in his pantheon yet. How MANY infectious diseases exist in the world that could be suppressed and engrafted on an organism and then passed on? Are these ALL "Psora"? No, it was in all likelihood merely a catch-all category. The individual characteristics of these miasms is essential to identify because many of the clients with them will require at some point a NOSODE in order to eradicate in clients. Psorinum will not work as a lynchpin
intercurrent if Psora is not the actual miasm involved. If we cannot categorize all the important miasms, then we will miss cases in part because we will miss cases that need the nosode of that miasm. Simon's exposition from notes of the characteristics of the nosode of the AIDS miasm is a case in point.

"Psora" can be in many cases a "cop-out" for much of what it previously represented. Yes, of course there is a psoric miasm. But only by testing out the expanded miasmatic system of Sankaran, and clinically confirming (or deconfirming) its validity for oneself will be allowed scientific comment without prejudice on the matter. IMO we should not dogmatically cling to parts of a theory which was INCOMPLETE and begs completion.
=========
Another point on miasms:
Example: Downs syndrome---With our present understanding this can be recognized as derangement of the vital energy and resulting material derangements of the parent's GAMETES. Down's syndrome if treated optimally with homeopathically immediately after birth can in some cases be modified to the degree that the patient has passable "IQ" and loses the Down's facial features. This is indicative that the derangements in many if not all cases are *energetic*. If they involve missing genetic information, then that information can be replaced during the still malleable time just after
birth. The material is repairable to a marked degree in these cases by the organism once the energy (miasm) has been identified and annihilated by the remedy and by the vital intelligence of the organism. Form and functional components that crystallized completely and only during gestation cannot be corrected fully, but the result of those malformations might be minimized by removal of the energies which created them.

Point-- this amplifies that all disease is energetic---even what is considered "genetic" and immutable. Thus, those with genetic diseases and advised not to reproduce could *theoretically* produce healthy offspring if treated with optimal homeopathic treatment.

Best,
Andy

[Nader Moradi]

Dear Andy,Chris,

Regarding meaning of "Miasm" as you wrote:it has wide range than only infectious diseases in other healing methods such as pranic healing ,etc. but in organon are there any diseases other than infectious one to be miasmatic in nature?I checked the file which has been sent by Soroush regarding words "Miasm" and "Miasmatic" but I couldn't find anything.Would you pls tell more about this.
-----------
(((((((Chris wrote:
Diseases or syndromes such as Diabetes Mellitus or osteoporosis are not separate diseases,they are sign&symptoms of secondary or tertiary stages of chronic miasms,in &80 Hahnemann has quoted:
The internal monstrous chronic miasm of psora is immeasurably more widespread, and consequently more significant, than the two chronic miasms just named. While syphilis marks its specific internal wasting sickness with the venereal chancre and sycosis does so with cauliflower-like growths, psora documents itself (only after the complete internal infection of the whole organism) by means of a peculiar skin eruption, sometimes consisting of only a few vesicles, accompanied by an unbearably tickling voluptuous itch and a specific odor. Psora is the true fundamental cause and engenderer of almost all the other remaining forms of disease which are numerous, indeed countless. 137
In pathology books, these countless forms of disease are considered to be self-contained diseases with names such as: nervous debility, hysteria, hypochondria, mania, melancholia, imbecility, frenzy, epilepsy and convulsions of all kinds, bone-softening (rachitis), scrofula, scoliosis and kyphosis, bone caries, cancer, fungus hematodes, neoplasms, gout, hemorrhoids, jaundice and cyanosis, dropsy, amenorrhea and hemorrhage from the stomach, nose, lungs, from the bladder and the uterus, asthma and suppuration of the lungs, impotence and infertility, migraine, deafness, cataracts and blindness, kidney stones, paralyses, defects of the senses, and pains of a thousand kinds, etc.>>>>>>>>>

Organon (§74-81) explains that there are three types of long lasting degenerative diseases. These are 1- the man-made and physician caused diseases, 2-disorders based on continual pathogenic influences, 3-and diseases based on the chronic miasms. All three of these chronic disorders are often combined to make a complex.

Question:
What is the differences between these three types?how can we discriminate these types?
----------

Andy wrote:
As I said before,I love Sankaran's works but IMO,Sankaran for his sycosis maism has studied Thuja and Medorrhinum and as far as I know Medorrhinum is nosode of Gonorrheal discharge but Sycosis of Hahneman is not due to Gonorrheal infectious.
If you want I can tell more about etiology of Hahnemann's sycosis.
Then it was better that Sankaran nameed his sycosis miasm other than "sycosis".

=====
Andy wrote:

))))) Psora IMO was a catch-all category, and therefore Hahnemann's Psora *cannot* be equivalent to Sankaran's Psora. Sankaran's Psora would be by definition a subset of a larger category previously called "hydra headed". Quite possibly Sankaran's Typhoid, Acute, Ringworm, and Malaria miasms are also subsets of Hahnemann's Psora.(((((((((

I aggree,and because of this, it was better that Sankarn named his clasisficatins other than Hahnemann's ones.

======
Andy wrote:

))))) My sense is that Sankaran is examining the dynamisms of the clients first, and that is what inspires his notion that the observed syndromes have not yet been categorized miasmatically. That Sankaran uses materia medica of rx employed in certain miasms to assist with defining or explaining the miasm does not mean that the original basis is other than empirical observation. Perhaps, but so far you have not convinced me. One thing that is clear is that the miasms that Sankaran posits are more subtle. Even in Hahnemann's time without the onslaught of suppression we have
now, miasms which can be identified mainly on subtle psychological factors would have been *very difficult* to define.

All the miasms we inherited had more gross characteristics in present time:
psora--itching skin expressions
sycosis--warts and hydrogenous joints
syphilis--suicide and mental pathology

Leprosy---had not been categorized well by Hahnemann

Later
TB--wasting diseases, respiratory diseases
Cancer--moles, neoplasms

Of the miasms that Sankaran has so far added
Typhoid--a febrile disease
Acute--a temporal disease (eg accidents, sudden manifestations--energy which attracts such incidents and fast-paced diseases)
Ringworm--cutaneous and systemic disease
Malaria--febrile disease

ONLY ringworm has gross characteristics that one could very easily connect with the disease from which the miasm originated.((((((((
Evey infectious diseases can not be Chronic miasm,for being chronic miasm,infectious disease must have three stages:1-Primary,2-Latent,3-Second or tirtiary.
Have you seen this three sategs in Typhoid,Malaria,Ringworm?

======

Andy wrote:

))))))Nader wrote:
Of course there are other differences that you can find from studying sankaran's works.

Difference from Hahnemann ALONE as logical point does not and should not mean "incorrect". I agree Hahnemann was a scientist nonpareil, and reliable. But the miasmatic theory was a WORK IN PROGRESS. I enjoyed reading your expositions in comparing Hepatitis A and B as acute and chronic, respectively. I would appreciate it, and think the whole group would, if you would further discuss your findings and knowledge of any miasms not commonly discussed and their self limiting or chronic nature.)))))))))

Thnx a lot, I will tell my finding and opinion about Hahnemann's miasms.

=======

Andy Worte:

((((Question: Influenza (in a never been well since patient) has engrafted on the organism. Can influenza influence the gametes and be passed on as a miasm, and if not, why not??))))))))))))
Influenza can not engraft itself on the organism,Influenza is acute miasm not chronic.Acute miasms are rapid in their onset and reach crisis after a relatively short period of time. Hahnemann notes that this genus of microorganisms is self-limiting so they leave the patient either in convalescence or dead. Patients who do not completely recover from acute miasms usually suffer from the chronic miasms.

========

Andy wrote:

))))))I really think that homeopathy will benefit from further in-depth work on miasmatic categorization. It may differ from Hahnemann in Psora, but that is because Psora was multi-pronged as Hahnemann pointed out. It was multipronged IMO because it included many other as-yet undifferentiated component miasms. We are at the point of refining and further differentiation. Do you agree? Disagree?))))))))

I agree completly.

======

Andy Wrote:

)))))))) I think Sankaran has only scratched the surface of inherited chronic miasms. For example, Rajan does not include hydrophobia nor AIDS in his pantheon yet. How MANY infectious diseases exist in the world that could be suppressed and engrafted on an organism and then passed on? Are these ALL "Psora"? No, it was in all likelihood merely a catch-all category. The individual characteristics of these miasms is essential to identify because many of the clients with them will require at some point a NOSODE in order to eradicate in clients. Psorinum will not work as a lynchpin
intercurrent if Psora is not the actual miasm involved. If we cannot categorize all the important miasms, then we will miss cases in part because we will miss cases that need the nosode of that miasm. Simon's exposition from notes of the characteristics of the nosode of the AIDS miasm is a case in point.)))))))))))

Not every infectious disease can be suppressed and engrafted otherwise be Chronic one,therefore Hydrophobia can ne classified as Chronic miasm,as I said before,for being Chronic miasm,disease must have 3 stages of Primary,Latent,Secondary or tirtiary.
AIDS certainly is Chronic miams.

Why do we need to use nosode for eradication of related miasm?

=========

Andy wrote:

)))))Another point on miasms:
Example: Downs syndrome---With our present understanding this can be recognized as derangement of the vital energy and resulting material derangements of the parent's GAMETES. Down's syndrome if treated optimally with homeopathically immediately after birth can in some cases be modified to the degree that the patient has passable "IQ" and loses the Down's facial features. This is indicative that the derangements in many if not all cases are *energetic*. If they involve missing genetic information, then that information can be replaced during the still malleable time just after birth. The material is repairable to a marked degree in these cases by the organism once the energy (miasm) has been identified and annihilated by the remedy and by the vital intelligence of the organism. Form and functional components that crystallized completely and only during gestation cannot be corrected fully, but the result of those malformations might be minimized by removal of the energies which created them.

Point-- this amplifies that all disease is energetic---even what is considered "genetic" and immutable. Thus, those with genetic diseases and advised not to reproduce could *theoretically* produce healthy offspring if treated with optimal homeopathic treatment.))))))
I agree completley with you,Once I was asked about Down Syndown that how Homeopathy can cure genetic disorders,can it change Chromosomses?
I answerd :how can it be said that all of Down syndroms are due to Chromosomal derangement?In my opnion Chromosomal derangemnet is one of Down symdrome ,too.
Kind Regards,

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