I was trying some formatting
You said
prescribing picture also included aspects such as family and personal
medical history--what he called the miasm. What's your understanding
of that history?
My Comments
As just history. Interesting but should be part of history. Now any
kind of case taking and analysis involves ( even in allopathy where
they do not talk about "miasms") going into genetics etc. and asking
about what our parents suffer from etc. Everyone even the general
public knows that what we see is not what it may actually be. We are
living in a post-Darwinian, post-Freudian society. Do you think
after Freud anyone even doubts about suppression etc? Yes many
acutes have a chronic behind and now that is part of any medical
practice. We know that many infections leave their footprint behind
and need to be cleaned up. Not just psoric skin suppression…
You said
suited the symptom picture, and so were effective palliatives, but
were
not "deep acting" enough to cure the miasm...)
My comments
Yes the moral of hahnemann's initial attempts is - take the case
more thoroughly and do not think that just covering the presenting
symptoms and resting on your laurels is enough. We do not have to
blame the poor souls inhabiting the family tree with syphilitic
taint… That is the reason I think we need to think in terms of more
than the 3 miasms and in fact generalize and go beyond these
confusing ideas based on 200 year old observations.
What do you think would have happened if someone had jaundice in
1820? Good clinical observations but no corroborations otherwise.
Nobody would have followed up with antibody titers and diagnosis
would not have been in terms in viruses causing this. Now we know
how to look for not just the symptoms but to look inside and verify
what is happening after the remedy. We still give importance to
symptoms ( mainly because that is what our MM are based on) but
there are other kinds of analyses possible.
You said
the reasons *why* Hahnemann
developed miasm theory, and his observation that deep cure of
returning
ailments needs to be met with an appropriate "anti-miasmatic"
My comments
His observations are usually golden or we would not be having a
discussion group. I am also not saying that treat just the
superficial symptoms. Generally for treating we look for patterns. 2
types of them.
In acutes it might not be possible to see patterns but even there
there are patterns.
Fever coming at 4 `o clock, always < eating etc. allow us to
prescribe. I could perhaps call this as a cross-sectional pattern
which gives us a view of what state is present now. Then there is a
longitudinal pattern which shows indications over a period of time
and a note of all the cross sectional patterns across illnesses
which shows us an overarching pattern over time. ( The patient is
still the same person).
If we analyze these patterns we can get the remedy. I do not know if
you have studied the case of Lac Caninum and Lippe's prescription of
it where he treated successfully a case with Lac caninum based on "
never well since" a case of diphtheria 10 years back when the throat
symptoms alternated side to side rapidly.( He did not bother to find
the " antimiasmatic" remedy though he speaks of suppressions)- but
based on symptoms. This is what is meant by looking into the case
without just thinking of any miasmatic orientation.
You said
who
"believe in miasms"
might have a hard time coming up with anacute that *didn't* have some relationship to an underlying miasm...
My comments
Sure – that is why I am saying getting into miasms confuses so much
You said
(Confused) But that is exactly what the miasmatic classification
does--syphilitic miasm is post-syphilitic, etc. Tho not necessarily
in
the patient him/herself. Why is it more useful to say "post-
syphilitic
state" than to say "syphilitic miasm"?
My Comments
You are only talking about syphilitic "miasm"- I am generalizing
about this to cover all the ones that occur after any infection or
affliction. Moreover miasm has become overloaded with extra
meanings. We are NOT connecting psora and syphilis and sycosis when
we talk of states. We would not be talking about psora going on to
become syphilis and about diabetes being an antisycotic disease and
asthma being one. If Nat.suplh is frequently indicated in diabetes
we need not say it is because it is antisycotic but because it is
indicated– whether it is due to constitutional action or local
action on some organ. ( After all we are not saying Gonorrhea by
itself causes diabetes or Nat.sulph is treating Gonorrhea at this
point) So still the indication is based on some symptom that
Nat.sulph is capable of causing and so curing.
You said
Hahnemann felt that it was possible to do so thru the symptom picture
(individual and familial). However usually it's just an assumption--
I,
for instance, haven't the faintest idea whether any of my ancestors
had
syphilis or "fig wart disease" or "itch"... But I guess the odds are
pretty good that some of them did!
My comments
And we need not suspect the fidelity of our forefathers…
You said
Do you mean, since we all have it anyway why even talk about it?
Yet it *does* have meaning (tho of course only in a general way) if
we
say someone comes from a "very syphilitic background", or is "very
psoric", etc. Why is it better to instead say "comes from a
background
that had a lot of violence, alcoholism and mental illness;.
My comments
This only leads to labels. (AND what you are saying is not what
Hahnemann spoke of as miasms.) What does this short-cut get you?
Does it help in understanding his/her condition or in treating? No.
I would always think the current population is always carrying all
miasms. In my mind it is like ":possibilities to get some specific
forms of disease" due to a weakened/maligned vital force? Everyone
has problems of all kinds and is there any unadulterated miasm in
any one – that is why we all end up saying that someone has moved
from psora to sycosis. When there is a lot of confusion what is
psora, syphilis and sycosis - using this to classify and then using
this to predict prognosis is like what – building castles in air?
If we are not going to have some specifics for these then what is
the use in classifying? Ultimately whatever meager help such
miasmatic classification gives us is offset by the enormous
confusion that it causes.
Even in Hahnemann's time there were people who questioned this
miasmatic approach. I have never analyzed all the symptoms of any
patient ever in terms of miasma and have had good successes in my
practice and treated many chronic conditions and "brought" a number
of items "from within out" just basing prescriptions on the present,
predominant and persistent symptoms.
By all this I do not mean to say that I am doing the right thing and
all those who follow miasma theory are faulty. What I am saying is
that I have never followed it, I have successfully prescribed for
all kinds of what would be "miasmatic diseases (including diabetes
and hypertension, hydronephrosis, acute and chronic renal
failures), there is no convincing evidence that it is in any way
useful or needed in current day practice and leads to a lot of hair-
splitting all over; and it is one more thing that we need to defend.
And this is one thing that I feel Hahnemann would have revised
definitely if he were to be here today.