Please save Homeopathy from miasms 1

[David Little]

At 02:41 AM 11/28/2005, you wrote:
Hello all,

The older traditional homoeopaths who studied the subject clinically
agreed quite well on the central characteristic symptoms of the miasms. I
have seen those who understand these characteristic symptoms come up with
the same miasm and remedies more than once. Reading symptoms and remedies
in this manner is just another extension of studying the symptoms of
patients and remedies but with one major difference. It is based on the
collective case of a homogeneous group rather than the individual person.
This is done by homoeopaths that have a more clinical and less
theoretical/metaphysical approach. It is part of understanding collective
disease states and their potential remedies. It is just a one more bit of
information that may be useful in some cases.
The study of the miasms has be investigated by following generations
who added their observations and brought the system up to date for their
times. Clinically miasms are the affects of acute, half acute and chronic
infections from which the patient has never been well since. These affects
may be inherited or acquired. Acute miasms include things like whooping
cough. Half acute includes things like rabies. Chronic miasms includes
things like syphilis. If you have a patient that suffering from soft tissue
infections that were suppressed this is psora. If you had a patient who
suffer from maltreated gonorrhea it leads to sycosis. If you had a patient
who suffers from syphilis this is syphilitic miasm. If you have a patient
who suffers from TB this is pseudopsora TB miasm. This is the clinical view
of the miasms. To understand the cause and nature of such diseases helps in
understanding its remedies and case management.
We lose an understanding which may affect our knowledge of collective
diseases and their progression that may affect the appropriate case
management procedures. We lose the entire subject of homoeopathic
epidemiology, which in many ways is more advance than its modern
counterpart. We would lose our understanding of infectious diseases and
their potential equels. This has very serious public health concerns
attached it as a complete medical system needs to understand infectious
disease, their pathological progressions, and their modes of transmission.
We would lose the group case based on the collective study of many patients
suffering the same miasma that helps us find the acute and chronic genus
epidemicus remedies that can be used to prevent, abort and treat
miasms. We lose knowledge of when and how to use the nosodes to remove
obstacles to the cure cause by chronic miasms. These are just a few examples.
I prefer to have a deeper understanding of what the causes and symptoms
mean because it helps me understand my patient, the nature of their
disease, as well as the stages through which the disorder will pass. One
cannot understand a miasm from the presiding symptoms of one patient nor
find a homogeneous group of remedies that may prevent, abort or treat the
disease. It takes the symptoms of several patients to find group symptoms
and remedies that are truly anti-miasmic because the presiding symptoms of
one patient only demonstrate one small facet of a collective disorder.

A remedy that can root out the entire miasm must have the potential to
remove the complete disease as represented in many patients. Therefore, the
presiding symptoms of one patient does not offer the complete picture for a
deeper study of the cause and symptoms of the miasms nor their remedies.
One may find a remedy either by a hit or miss method that only uses the
presiding symptoms or one may study the patient with a clear understanding
of the collective disease symptoms and their remedies as elicited through a
group study. Obviously, the more knowledge one has about a disease state
the better one is able to treat it, manage the case, and work with the
related public health concerns (preventative remedies for contacts,
quarantine, hygiene, diet, regimen,etc).

This is the basis of Hahnemann's idea as expressed in the group case
and anti-miasmic remedies. I am not writing this to convince one person who
is against the very idea of including miasms in Homoeopathy. I am writing
it for those who might be interested in the basic ideas behind Hahnemann's
teachings and the ramifications of the teaching in our times.

In cases where a miasm poses an obstacle to the cure we sometimes find
that the remedies apparently indicated by presiding symptoms are not
working as they should. In such a case, knowledge of the characteristic
symptoms of the miasms may help one to select chronic intercurrents, which
are often the related nosode. This was a method developed by Hering which
is also very helpful in some cases. There are times when a "clinical"
understanding of the symptoms of the miasms and their potential remedies
and nosodes is helpful.

As to all the new theoretic metaphysical speculations - the beauty is
in the eye of beholder I guess??? If it helps them in some way - why not
let them be? Personally, I find the old fashioned clinically based approach
a bit more practical in practice.
I find the *clinical approach* to the miasms helpful in some cases. If
the person has TB it is best to be aware of what TB miasm is and its
pathology. In advanced TB one can't just give remedies by the presiding
symptoms without understanding nature and stage of the disease state.
Sometimes, one must use remedies that are appropriate according to stages,
time and circumstances. For example, one should not use deep acting
minerals in the advanced stages of TB even if the symptoms point to them.
It is better to begin such patients on plant analogs that suit the organic
level first to improve the pathology and restore some vitality. In cases of
inherited TB miasm it is important to recognize the symptoms and remove the
predispositions so they don't acquire active TB or other infections that
like to piggyback on such a state. There are also other clinical areas were
understanding the miasms may be helpful in some cases.
It is not a matter of prescribing or not prescribing on the miasms. It
is a matter of knowledge of disease and understanding when the information
on the miasms may be helpful. This miasms are just one more "bit" of data
that may offer some help at times. Statements like "holy cows" misses the
central point that in disease of common cause and similar symptoms that
affect a homogeneous group are studied by the collective anamnesis. This
helps us understand the nature of the disease and provides insights into
potential remedies that may prevent, abort or treat these states. This is a
practical clinical consideration not a religious idea or rituals.

IMO to say - cause doesn't matter, miasms don't matter, circumstances
don't matter, knowledge of pathology doesn't matter - nothing matters but
the presiding symptoms is a limited view Hahnemann rejected by the1820s.
The first point of the Organon is knowledge of disease. Then comes
knowledge of medicines. Then comes knowledge of how to apply remedies to
the disease state. In the 5th and 6th Organon cause, miasms, symptoms and
circumstances are part of that knowledge. How much bearing knowledge of the
miasms has on an individual cases varies widely but at times it is quite
useful.

I think you have missed the middle path and are falling into a one
sided extreme view that is a reversed mirror image of the extreme view of
the spiritualist you so bitterly criticize. Miasms are either everything or
nothing to some folks. I believe the direct clinic approach avoids these
extremes in both directions. Miasms are not everything but they sure are
not a nothing that should be purged from Homoeopathy. These teachings offer
an advanced knowledge of infectious diseases and their sequels and a
effective collective case taking method found in no other system
of healing. This is the key to understanding preventative, abortive and
therapeutic remedies for the affects of infectious diseases.

Sincerely, David Little

PS. No need to get into a long discussion on this subject. I have been
avoiding getting involved in the discussions but I think to demand that the
study of the miasms should be removed to Homeopathy is going too far. I am
just writing to share my views and experience with others on this list
including the silent majority.

DL.

---------------
"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines."

Samuel Hahnemann

Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2000

[doctorleelah2h]

Dear David,
Thanks you very much for this detailed answer.
I did send you a private message on similar lines ... I look forward
to hearing from you.
Thanks a lot again,
leela
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, David Little wrote:
clinically
miasms. I
with
remedies
person.
collective
bit of
generations
their
chronic
affects
tissue
patient
patient
clinical view
helps in
collective
transmission.
patients
genus
examples.
symptoms
One
nor
treat the
symptoms
symptoms of
potential to
Therefore, the
picture for a
remedies.
understanding
through a
state
case
person who
writing
Hahnemann's
sometimes find
which
which
remedies
beauty is
not
approach
cases. If
stages,
them.
organic
cases of
remove the
that
areas were
miasms. It
information
data
misses the
This
into
This is a
circumstances
matters but
the1820s.
remedies to
symptoms and
of the
quite
view of
everything or
these
are
teachings offer
and
that the
far. I am
no more
Homoeopathic