PSORA

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear Colleagues

I would like us to discuss one of the ideas that Peter Chappell has touched
on and as far as I am concerned it could be the first time that such a view
is being expressed.

Hn mentions three miasm (infection diseases): Sycosis / Gon (or is it HPV),
Syphilitic and lastly Psora.
Others later mention Tubercular miasm.
Apart from Psora, specific symptoms are associated with them.

The main point with these infections diseases is that their aftermath is
passed down through the generations. I am discussing active and not
inherited.

With Tub, Syc and Syph there seems to be a general agreement that a specific
micro-organism is involved.

We see Hn suggests specific remedies for the treatment of active Gon and
Syph, but compare that to his suggestions for Psora.

Hn refers to Psora as the most infectious and like hydra - multi-headed.
Apart from the general common factor / trend of some kind of skin symptoms
associated with Psora, it seems that it shows itself in different guises.

Of course we now know that a specific micro-organism is associated with each
of the great deal of the physical diseases we see around us (eg childhood
diseases and other infection diseases some of which are very contagious).

Can we suppose that if he had had access to microscopes at the time and
could differentiate between the causes of these named diseases, then he
would have called them by a different name?

What would be your reaction to the idea that in reality Hn has put the
symptoms of all of these diseases in one category and called it psora?

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

[Rosemary C Hyde, Ph.D.]

Well, I certainly think that Sankaran's work in teasing the ringworm, malaria, typhoid, and acute miasms out of the Psoric turf seems warranted and well supported by distinct patterns of symptom occurrence.EBV seems another likely candidate. I know there's been some thought about herpes as a potential miasm, but don't know the patterns that have been proposed for it.

In Chronic Disease, it was clear that Hahnemann hadn't yet made clear distinctions between Sycosis and Syphilis, and Tuberculosis was still called "Pseudo-psora," so his miasmatic thinking progressed as he went along, and I'm sure that there was room for the concept to develop yet further in range and complexity after his death.

So I agree with you, Soroush, that most likely Psora is based on a group of infectious pathogens in addition to scabies, the one early homeopaths seem to have chosen as the basis for that miasm. It's also likely, as we go along, that it will become clear that other basic miasmatic paterns have subsets (e.g. as an off the wall possibility, herpes as a subset of Sycosis, or pertussis as a subset of Tuberculosis, as Ringworm seems a distinct subset of Psora.)Looking at Sankaran's most recent miasmatic charts, which I find very helpful in conceptualizing the miasms (e.g. in his new book "Sensations," ), the miasms he's teased out of Psora all operate within the same range of emotional feeling, as Lepra and Syphilis do at the bottom end of the emotional spectrum, but with different patterns of occurence. From this observation, I'd conclude that Identifying a miasm seems to require a pandemic pathognomic organism, capable of transmitting heritable symptoms from one generation to the next and also characterized by a distinct pattern of symptom occurrence on all levels of the host organism.

Interesting topic!!

Rosemary

[doctorleelah2h]

Souroush said:
"Can we suppose that if he had had access to microscopes at the time
and
could differentiate between the causes of these named diseases, then
he
would have called them by a different name?

What would be your reaction to the idea that in reality Hn has put the
symptoms of all of these diseases in one category and called it
psora?"

I think we need to be a little careful about discounting HAhnemann's
observations re: Psora.
ONE strong arguement for this is what Dr. VIjaykar has expressed in
his book "End of Miasumptions". I agree wtih him on this point.

I did read PEters note about there being 50 different Miasm's but I
don't agree with him. I don't disagree with his observation, but I
disagree with him calling them "Miasms". I think its best he coins
another word for this. I remember him wanting to use the
term "CEEDS". This I think would be more appropriate to express his
observations and vuews and I would be happy to go along with that.

NO, I don't think HAhnemann (if he has a microscope) would have
differentiated the Psoric disease more than putting those that had a
more Syphillitic-type tendency and Sycotic-Type tendency into the
PSeudoPSora (Tubercular) Miasm.

His MIsamatic categorization had to do with the expression of the
infective organism on the body, given the inherited traits and
character and habits of those persons - the complete miasmatic state
of th vital force at that point.
Eg - If a predominantly Psoric Individual had sexual intercourse
with a partner who was infected with syphillis, it was not mean that
that individual would develop syphillis. This would only happen if
there was already a syphillitic soil (taint or acquired weakness) in
that individual. The homeopathic 'law' of susceptibility holds fort
here as well.

Warm regards,
Dr. leela
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Finrod" wrote:

[Piet Guijt]

Hi Soroush, all

I do not agree what Peter is teaching and I disagree he turned to a kind of
Heilkunst where every disease 'cause' must be treated. This is a lack of
understanding of Homoeopathy and of what Hahnemann's miasm are about.
I found a old mail by David Little, which might put some light on your
questions;
Yes, suppressed scabies can produce psora but so can suppressed
staphylococcus, herpes and tinea. There are too many documented cases where
suppressed scabies produced chronic symptoms that were removed when a
scabies-like eruption returned on the skin. I have seen this with scabies,
fungi, staphylococcus, and other infections of the skin. One can not ignore
all the clinical data that has been collected over the last 180 years. The
clinic case histories based on knowledge of the original infection and the
reversal of symptoms under homeopathic show the way. It is NOT the "bug"
that produces the symptoms. It is the suppressed, drug and mistuned vital
force that causes the symptoms!

All these organisms (bacteria, fungi, viruses and mites) cause skin
infections that share the same pathway of disease and produce a similar
psoric syndrome on suppression. Psora was a word use by the ancient Greeks
to describe a wide variety of skin diseases. Hahnemann integrated this word
with the same meaning in mind. This means that psora is NOT caused by one
agent. Ringworm falls into the general category of fungi related to psora
and has a relationship to pseudopsora.

Candida is a fungi and could well be included in psora when it appears
as a skin infection but if it comes through another pathway of disease it
might fall into another category. It is the human organisms constitutional
reaction to chronic skin infections and suppression that makes Psora not
one specific skin vector over another. What is important is the pathway of
the disease, which in the case of psora is the skin. VD has another
pathway. TB has another pathway.

Like psora, sycosis might include more than one agent like gonococcus,
chlamydia, trichomoniasis as well as HPV or other homogeneous infective
agents that share a similar pathway and produce similar constitutional
symptoms on suppression. All of this must be shorted out over time. I have
confirmed this in some cases of chlamydia. A patient became "sycotic" after
suppression of a discharge and then produced many of the symptoms in the
classical symptoms list. His memory started to fad, the fishy smells
appeared and he got stiff joints, squinty eyes, suspicious, etc. Under
treatment all the symptom started to leave one by one until he passed 4oz
of stinky, yellow green pus out of his penis! Then he was totally cured!

This is proof of the cause, the symptoms and the curative remedy in
that miasm. It was impossible to tell a difference in the chronic symptoms
of this chlamydia-sycosis from the gonorrheal-sycosis. Other sycotic cases
reversed to a gonorrheal discharge showing the origin of the symptoms. In
one case a discharge that was suppressed 20 years ago returned! That is why
I disagree with Will Taylor about his rejection of gonorrhea as a factor is
sycosis. These are clinic facts not theories about one microorganism versus
another.

Yes, we have to bring all this material up to date but in accordance
with the principles Hahnemann set out in his discourse on psora, as it set
the pattern for all other chronic miasms. Psora is not "scabies" or
"candida". Psora is constitutional reaction of the human organism to
suppressed skin infections caused by mites, bacteria, fungi and viruses
that produce a homogeneous set of symptoms. One must look at the bands of
susceptibility, the affected pathways of disease, and the nature of the
group symptoms by taking a collective case based on many sufferers. This is
how one really finds out what is what!

Then one must find a homogeneous group of remedies that reflect these
symptoms. This is how one finds the anti-miasmic remedies for the greater
miasm. Then one must select the remedy for the patient out of this
anti-miasmic group of remedies by the individual symptoms of the patient.
Then one must give the remedy and follow the reversal of symptoms under
treatment as it reverses toward the original cause. If the patient had
suppressed mites, bacteria, fungi, etc, that caused psora and an eruption
reappears you know what is what. If the miasm was caused by gonococcus the
gonorrheal-like discharge may reappear. again then one knows the cause in
that case.

This is how a miasm is really investigated. If we wish to know about
AIDS, chronic hepatitis, and several other global miasms we must follow the
path Hahnemann laid down. If we want to know about endemic miasms like
Lyme, this is the path we should follow. We can tell more about these
miasms from the group case and the reversal of symptoms during cure than
conjectures about one microorganism than another.

That is exactly what Hahnemann did with psora and he would have done
with sycosis and syphilis if he lived longer. The reversal of the symptoms
to the original cause proves the hypothesis as well as the curative power
of the remedies. If we want to walk in Hahnemann's footsteps we best get
moving. Just saying "this is this and that is not that" is no where near
enough. As Hippocrates said. Ars Longa - Vita Brevis. My advice to everyone
is less talk and more work!

God, my fingers are tired and my eyes hurt! Too much work but I could
not resist expressing my thoughts. Please excuse all the typographic
errors, etc. I don't have time to go over and over this. What I said comes
from both my heart and my head as well as the last 3 decades of work in the
clinic. Don't sell the methods Hahnemann introduced short. There is a
method to the madness.

Similia Minimus
Sincerely, David Little

Regards, Piet

[peter chappell]

Piet Guijt wrote:
Hi Soroush, all

I do not agree what Peter is teaching and I disagree he turned to a kind of
Heilkunst where every disease 'cause' must be treated. This is a lack of
understanding of Homoeopathy and of what Hahnemann's miasm are about.
I found a old mail by David Little, which might put some light on your
questions;
I think most miasmic names have two distinct meanings

Syphilitic means

the chronic effects of syphilis

AND SEPARATELY

A meta effects, a destructive overall phenomena into which might fit many other micro-organism based diseases like leprosy

Using the same word for two effects or two meanings is I think confusing.

I am suggesting that CEED, the chronic effect of epidemic disease is a better term for the use related to diseases/micro-organisms
However

I think Psora exists on ONLY as an overall effect and does not represent exactly any local micro-organism like scabies

I say, like Hahnemann, it’s a hydra headed monster, but that these are 100 separate micro-organisms he was unable then to recognize.

I am also saying that the categories, once we have teased out the essences of all the common epidemic diseases/miasms/micro-organisms will probable give us a much larger repertoire of catagories of meta miasms and a broader understanding of the human race.

The current dustbin nature of Psora is, I am saying, far too undifferentiated.
Yes, suppressed scabies can produce psora but so can suppressed
staphylococcus, herpes and tinea. There are too many documented cases where
suppressed scabies produced chronic symptoms that were removed when a
scabies-like eruption returned on the skin. I have seen this with scabies,
fungi, staphylococcus, and other infections of the skin. One can not ignore
all the clinical data that has been collected over the last 180 years.
The
clinic case histories based on knowledge of the original infection and the
reversal of symptoms under homeopathic show the way. It is NOT the "bug"
that produces the symptoms. It is the suppressed, drug and mistuned vital
force that causes the symptoms!
All these organisms (bacteria, fungi, viruses and mites) cause skin
infections that share the same pathway of disease and produce a similar
psoric syndrome on suppression. Psora was a word use by the ancient Greeks
to describe a wide variety of skin diseases. Hahnemann integrated this word
with the same meaning in mind. This means that psora is NOT caused by one
agent. Ringworm falls into the general category of fungi related to psora
and has a relationship to pseudopsora.
Candida is a fungi and could well be included in psora when it appears
as a skin infection but if it comes through another pathway of disease it
might fall into another category. It is the human organisms constitutional
reaction to chronic skin infections and suppression that makes Psora not
one specific skin vector over another. What is important is the pathway of
the disease, which in the case of psora is the skin. VD has another
pathway. TB has another pathway.

Like psora, sycosis might include more than one agent like gonococcus,
chlamydia, trichomoniasis as well as HPV or other homogeneous infective
agents that share a similar pathway and produce similar constitutional
symptoms on suppression. All of this must be shorted out over time. I have
confirmed this in some cases of chlamydia. A patient became "sycotic" after
suppression of a discharge and then produced many of the symptoms in the
classical symptoms list. His memory started to fad, the fishy smells
appeared and he got stiff joints, squinty eyes, suspicious, etc. Under
treatment all the symptom started to leave one by one until he passed 4oz
of stinky, yellow green pus out of his penis! Then he was totally cured!
So I say lets be clear about the small picture - ceeds, based on specific singular micro-organisms and miasms, and on the big picture, miasms -meta effects
Bye

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

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear David

Thank you for the exchanges on miasms etc, they have been very educational
and informative and may they long continue.

I attended a lecture by Peter Chappell a couple of years ago and there he
brought up the concepts of CEEDs (Chronic Effects of Epidemic Diseases).
This is not too dis-similar to the phenomena of cases of NEVER BEEN WELL
SINCE. (NBWS)

When we contrast these to Sycosis and Syphilis, we see great similarities:
- There are micro-organisms that are now recognised as causative (providing
of course the recipient in susceptible)
- That these diseases usually each follow a certain pattern
- That there are near as damn it specific homoeopathic remedies for them (as
there are for normal epidemic diseases), eg Thuja and Merc.
- That if these are cured by their homoeopathic specifics all well and good,
but if they are not, then the patients end up with Chronic diseases.

Now if we compare these with PSORA, again Hn himself calls Psora the most
contagious there is and so similar patterns to the above follow.

One of the discussions I have had with Nader privately runs along the lines
that Hn had no access to microscopes and the recognition of micro organisms
was not an advanced science in his days.
He clearly and accurately identified the two disease of HPV (or Gonorrhoea
in some people's mind) and Syphilis as separate diseases with their own set
of symptoms and courses.

However, it seems that he grouped together whatever 'disease' that has an
itch or skin eruption as a symptom as Psora. Especially if this happens to
be first generation
NBWS or the problem seen in second or subsequent generations. This then
created a confused picture as WHAT IS PSORA -contrast that Hn's picture of
Sycosis of Syphilis is reasonably clear.

Hn also identifies certain anti-psoric remedies - where these intended to be
for specific different types of Psora?

It must be said that whereas skilled homoeopaths can easily identify a case
as syphilitic or sycotic or tubercular etc (in contrast the practitioners of
conventional medicine are not aware of these issues) we as homoeopaths are
not able to say clearly that a set of symptoms are from the fact the patient
(or his ancestors) had had measles, or typhoid or other disease after which
they may not have fully recovered. We just brand these cases as Psoric and
leave it at that.

This then leads us to one of Nader's very early questions that how does the
identification of case as Psoric, Syphilitic, or Sycotic etc going to assist
one in one's case management?
Rgds
Soroush
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Joy Lucas]

Apologies for interjecting but you said, below
edited

I disagree. I think that if we take a really full case which includes a
medical history then we can time and again see a chain of events that
illustrate our susceptibilities - through acutes, chronic episodes,
lifestyles etc. This in itself can provide strong pointers as to the
most dominant or influencing miasm, as you say but even if it is a case
of NBWS in my experience this will be reasonably obvious, often the
client will tell you that straightforwardly. Even if the aetiology is
distant the full case taking will reveal the necessary links.
This is a different question. It can help fine tune our expertise if we
are able to identify the dominant active miasm/s, although an early or
inaccurate appraisal can lead to inaccurate prescribing - insisting
that the case requires a sycotic rx for example when in fact it turns
out not to be. Case management should be exactly that - managing
whatever needs it. Get the simillimum as often as possible with an
accurate decision on potency and dose and case management is reduced to
a minimum. Bests wishes, Joy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear Joy,

My contention was that the aftermath of both Chickenpox and Measles were
regarded as Psora by Hn.

So my question is - How do you differentiate between Measles Psora and
Chickenpox Psora especially if the baby has inherited it and itself has not
had neither chickenpox nor measles?

What I am trying to say is that if it was a 'syphilitic' child you would not
have any difficulty saying so.

Do you see what I am driving at?

Of course a fully taken case and a properly managed case will take care of
the miasmatic influences - for example if you have in the case deep bone
pains, << night, the remedy indicated is almost bound to have syph
influences. But would that make you take the rubric GENERALS SYPHILITIC?
If yes, what is the advantage as your remedy is going to be syphilitic any
way, and if not, then how has the fact it is syphilitic case helped you with
your remedy selection?

One answer I can think of is that it would enable us to forewarn the patient
as to possible likely events after the remedy has been taken so that they do
not panic with any discharges etc.

Further and other inputs are most welcome please.
Rgds
Soroush

[Piet Guijt]

Hello Soroush,

What is the use to Differentiate between Chickenpox and Measles in the case
of your example?
All you need to know there is an uncured disease or there are more, which
follow(s) a certain pathway, Psoric, Sycotic or Syphilic. The simillimum
must cover this pattern to be able, to resolve this.
It is a misconception to equate the disease Gonorrhoea with the miasm
Sycosis or the disease Syphilis with the Syphilic miasm (although they
reflect them very well in their disease picture). The miasm also includes
the constitutional tendency, along with a similar infection. In case of
Sycosis the infection might as well be Chlamydia etc.
Maybe it is a good suggestion to explain to David, that every named disease
is supposed to have its own specific CEED according to Peter Chappell?

Kind regards, Piet

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Thank you Piet

As far as CD pathways are concerned, I agree with you 100%. That is the
reason I said that if the case is properly taken and analysed the remedy
would reflect the disease traits. However, please compare the pathways of
Syc and Syph with Psora. Suddenly clarity becomes confused.

Re misconception - Are you saying that it is possible to have a syphilitic
case even though there is absolutely no infection with syphilis anywhere in
the patient's lineage? (The problem is that with mankind's history of wars,
rapes and illicit liaisons we can never be sure that there was NEVER any
syphilitic influence, but pls treat it as a theoretical question.)

Perhaps an additional point to tell David is that Peter Chappell believes
that there should be a simple homoeopathic specific to cover each of the
CEEDs. These may be of course be TB, Malaria, HIV/AIDS, ME, MS, etc etc -
hence of course his PC remedies.
(see www.vitalremedies.com)
Rgds
Soroush