Neisserian Gonorrhea & Sycosis 1

[David Little]

At 02:54 AM 5/10/2006, you wrote:
Dear Ardavan,

Thank you for the clarification. Will Talyor, who also pointed out the
HPV connection to sycosis, stated that gonorrhea N was only a local sub
acute infection not a chronic miasm capable of causing chronic diseases. I
guess I was responding as much to what he said as to what you were saying.
As you did not clarify that you believed that the suppression of gonorrhea
N causes chronic diseases I assumed you did not think so. So, we both agree
that the "gonorrheal N miasm is a chronic disease".

You wrote:

"Hahnemann in the section of Sycosis in his 'Chronic Diseases' has
written that figwarts disease may be accompanied by a kind of gonorrhea (not
always) which is different from common gonorrhea (Read the first page of
the section and also the footnote). He mentions that the common gonorrhea
(what we now know as Neisserian gonorrhea) does not penetrate to the system
as a chronic miasm. And there is a difference between gonorrhea associated
with Sycosis and 'common gonorrhea'."

This statement made it appear you were agreeing that gonorrhea N does
not produce chronic diseases. You did not say that YOU believe gonorrhea N
produces chronic disease and was a miasm in its own right. It is my opinion
that Hahnemann was looking at mixed cases of venereal diseases and some of
these cases involved gonorrhea N. Why do I say this? In the Paris casebooks
Hahnemann treats obvious cases of gonorrhea N with no HPV warts with
anti-sycotic remedies like Thuja. I am working on a very extensive case
with my team from the 1840s where the patient contracted classic gonorrhea
N while he was under treatment. In this case Hahnemann gave Cannabis 30c
alternated with Thuja in LM potency on the basis of the gonorrheal
discharge and its concomitants. Why was Hahnemann using Thuja if he did
not think this type of gonorrhea was a form of sycosis? There were no
"warts" in this case. This is not the only case of this nature.

Hahnemann's general pattern in treating primary infections of gonorrhea
N was to start of with remedies like cannabis, clematis, copaiva, cantharis
and once the inflammatory symptoms were calmed to follow up with remedies
like Thuja, Nitric acid and Cinnabaris. Why did he always give these deep
acting antisycotic remedies when treating gonorrhea N? I believe the answer
is quite simple. He thought that gonorrhea N was a sycotic diseases that
need antisycotic treatment. This is how he practice so it must be what he
thought!

In chronic cases with secondary symptoms like rheumatism, arthritis and
gout (now considered sycotic symptoms) he would use remedies by symptoms
like Cochicum, Guaiacum, Sepia, Strontium, Platina, Con as well as Thuja
and Nitric acid. Many of the remedies he used have proven to be
anti-sycotic remedies. He used them along withThuja and Nitric acid! So the
general pattern of what is know called gonorrheal sycosis and its method of
treatment was already established by Hahnemann between 1835 and 1843. I
don't think we can ignore HOW Hahnemann treated gonorrhea N. This evidence
from the Paris casebooks show him using classic anti-sycotic remedies like
Thuja and Nitric acid against pure gonorrhea N cases. Therefore, it is only
local to think he considered gonorrhea N a sycotic disease.
From what I have seen in the Paris casebooks this is not so. Why was he
using Thuja and Nitric acid in cases involving gonorrhea N? The answer can
only be because the thought they were sycotic diseases.

Can you please give the quote by Kent with a reference? I would like to
check it out. Kent was of the opinion that warts may appear as a sequel in
some cases of gonorrhoea N. I must say that I have also seen this in cases.
The patient contacted gonorrhea N which was suppressed and later they
developed warts, flecks and moles. These could be piggyback infections that
thrive in the sycotic terrain. These skin tags resolve as the symptoms
caused by gonorrheal sycosis were removed. Kent wrote:

"Of course, the books will tell you that gonorrhoea is not a constitutional
disease; but when gonorrhoea will produce warts, and gonorrheal rheumatism,
and will last throughout life, and children be brought into the world with
the same disease, how are you going to get around it?

So in this quote one can see that Kent did make a connection between
gonorrhea N and warts.
Hahnemann called infections caused by mites (scabies), bacteria
(leprosy, erysipelas, pimples, boils), fungi (ringworm, tetter) and viruses
(herpes) "Psora". He did not consider these different diseases because they
share the same terrain, pathway of disease and chronic symptoms when
suppressed. Just because there are more than one infective agent does not
make them any less "Psora". Hering states that we may have to make up some
subspecies of psora. I call these subspecies psora 1, 2, 3, and 4. I think
the same may be true of sycosis because it relates to an inner terrain and
susceptibility. I think there is nothing wrong with considering gonorrheal
sycosis and HPV sycosis varieties of sycosis as we understand it today.

IMO, gonorrhea N and HPV are species of sycosis. The symptoms of these
diseases seem quite interrelated in many cases. So in my world there is 1.
HPV sycosis and 2. Gonorrheal N sycosis. From what has been observed the
suppression of these factors causes a homogeneous group of chronic
symptoms. I believe they are both "sycosis" because Hahnemann treated them
both with Thuja and other anti-sycotic remedies. From what I have seen
chlamydia and trichomoniasis may also cause sycotic-like syndromes but I
need more time to studying the symptoms.

I think Hering's advice that we all must go further than Hahnemann and
correct the errors of the past applies here. Homeopaths have done this by
separating the symptoms of psora from the symptoms of TB and expanding our
understanding of sycosis and syphilis. Hahnemann' Paris casebooks show that
Hahnemann treated gonorrhea N as a from of sycosis because he treated it
with Thuja and other anti-sycotic remedies. I think this confirmation is
worth its weight in gold because it show us what he actually did in the
clinic. Hahnemann treated gonorrhea N as a sycotic disease! What other
proof do we need? Others were only following in his footsteps.

So anyway, I am willing to agree to disagree on some of these subjects.

Sincerely, David Little
Kent confirms his observation that
---------------
"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

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Ardavan,
I'm confused...
If I'm understanding right, Medorrhinum is the remedy made from the
discharge of gonorrhea N. How could anyone claim that Medorrhinum is
not connected with chronic disease? Or is that not the form of
gonorrhea from which it's made?
Shannon

[Shannon Nelson]

Oops sorry, I meant to address that to David!
But will happily take answers from both!

[Kathryn Ellen Madono]

Dear David and Ardavan,
I know your discussion must be important but I must be missing a link. I know very little about medicine. I thought homeopathy was based on symptoms not on disease definition. I thought that miasms were also not defined by allopathic disease names. If a single allopathic disease definition is found in two miasms, why is this an issue?
Blessings,
Ellen

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

[David Little]

At 05:16 AM 5/11/2006, you wrote:

Dear Ellen,

Hahnemann's miasms are a study of acute, half acute and chronic
infections disorders and their sequels. These are infectious diseases of
common cause and similar symptoms that affect a homogenous group of
patients. The titles like Psora include a certain type of infectious agent.
In the case of Psora it is a study of soft tissue infections and what
happens after their suppression. This includes a number of pathogens
including mites, bacteria, fungi and viruses but they all share a similar
inner terrain, the same pathway of disease and produce a homogeneous set of
chronic symptoms on suppression. The collective symptoms are studied by a
group cases based on the symptoms of many patients, In this way one can
find a group of specific genus remedies that may be useful in treating and
preventing the target disease states. Miasms may have disease titles like
psora but they but the approach to their study and treatment is unique to
Homoeopathy. Disease names are not inherently "allopathic". It is how one
approaches such titles that makes the difference.

Sincerely, David Little
---------------
"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

[Kathryn Ellen Madono]

Dear David,
I am not trying to play the devil's advocate but how do you document a "homogenous group of
patients" in any medical field, allopathic or homeopathic? I hear the same common sense experience of clinicians of allopathy. Do you just listen to some doctors because they have a good reputation and disregard the physician without a well known reputation? Doesn't sound scientific. I am a lay person so I tend to fall for whatever appeals or form my prejudices based on insufficient experiences. But that does not sound right for rational decision making.
Blessings,
Ellen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[David Little]

At 10:44 AM 5/12/2006, you wrote:

Dear Ellen,

The way Homoeopaths document a homogeneous group of patients in
homeopathy is through the group case method. This method is used only for
diseases of common cause and similar symptoms such as the infectious
miasms. If you take the symptoms of 100 people suffering from the same
miasm you begin to see that certain characteristics symptoms stand out from
the common symptoms. These group symptoms then become useful for
recognizing those suffering from the same disease.

Sincerely, David
---------------
"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

[Kathryn Ellen Madono]

Dear David,

What am I missing?

It seems that you and Ardavan and disputing the identity of the miasmatic group. How can you use evidence developed from differently defined groups and arrive at any conclusion? To me, it is enough to say that the traditional miasmatic grouping works on a clinical, but testing the group above that level of analysis seems difficult.

At least in Hanhemman's time, the "common disease cause" was not clear. So I think he was creating the miasmatic group from symptoms also. You speak of multiple layers of VD diseases, thus the picture is blurred even when you have a clear VD cause.

You base the large miasmatic group on for example soft tissue for Psora, multiplication of tissue for the sycotic miasm. Destruction of tissue for Syphilitic. This is not, however, "cause."
To me, the miasm appears to be a heuristic grouping that works in practice, but it is unclear how you create groups to create further evidence for the miasm concept.

Blessings,
Ellen

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

Basically it is the same way in each type of medical practice.
Measles is called measles because because all the patients have a series of
common symptoms; same with many of the named diseases based on symptoms and
signs.
In Chinese medicine, we have the patterns; to be an Exterior Cold Wind, you
need a certain number of common signs and symptoms.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".

[David Little]

At 03:04 AM 5/14/2006, you wrote:

Not sure?
The bottom line is Ardavan and Nader would like to get rid of the terms
psora and sycosis because they may involve more than one microorganism.
They would like to make each miasm have one causative microorganism. I am
advising caution and suggesting making any changes in accordance with the
symptom found by group case studies. This is the method Hahnemann suggested
for studying the acute and chronic miasms and finding genus remedies.
Hahnemann taught that miasms were collective diseases based on the similar
causes. He wrote a lot about single and multiple causations, etc. This is
how one finds acute and chronic genus remedies.
Yes, the miasm portraits are based on symptoms collected from a large
group of sufferers suffering from the same miasm. Then they are studied in
accordance with analogy and experience and certain themes are produced.
Hahnemann originally collected the symptoms of Psora by marking the psoric
symptoms in his casebooks with the title NB (note well). If a symptom
proved to be dependable he would transfer it to his notes that eventually
became one of the symptoms found under psora in the Chronic Diseases. The
collection of the symptoms of the miasms IS based on the group case taking
method. Please read Organon aphorism 100 to 103.
---------------
"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