Neisserian Gonorrhea & Sycosis 4

[David Little]

Hello all,

I think it is best to explain my position on bringing the miasms up to
date so I am not misunderstood. I think we should think long and hard
before we through out names like psora and sycosis. Why? Because there is
over a century of observations by several generations of homoeopaths
involved in collecting the group symptoms of these diseases. Hahnemann
included the effects of the suppression of a variety of microorganisms
(mites, bacteria, fungi, viruses) under the general title "Psora". He knew
that the cause of scabies was different than the cause of ringworm but he
observed that the suppression of skin infections produced an unhealthy
inner terrain he called "internal psora". This unhealthy inner terrain
contributes to the latent and secondary symptoms of psora and opens the
sufferer to other opportunistic infections. Hahnemann observed the effects
of suppression and the corresponding terrain changes and found that they
produced a homogenous set of chronic symptoms.

Now some are suggesting that names like Psora should be rejected and we
should separate psora into perhaps, 15 or 20 skin miasms in accordance with
the allopathic classification of skin infections. A similar suggestion is
being made about sycosis. I my opinion Psora was never considered to be a
name for one microorganism, but rather, a name for a collection of
infections that share a similar terrain, similar disease pathways and
produce a homogeneous set of similar chronic symptoms on suppression.
*Psora is an internal terrain not a microorganism.* We have 178 years of
observations about the suppression skin diseases made by several
generations of homeopaths. We have the symptoms of a group case that spans
10,000s of persons over a century and half. We just can not throw out all
this collective experience so easily. The same thing may be said of sycosis.

My research shows that in the Materia Medica Pura Hahnemann said that
"bad gonorrhea" was caused by the sycosis and he suggested Thuja as a
remedy. I looked in the Paris casebooks and they show Hahnemann treating
"bad gonorrhea" with Thuja just as he suggested. Therefore, I came to the
conclusion that he thought bad gonorrhea is sycotic and Thuja a useful
remedy! It just that simple. That Thuja can be used in acute diseases, or
that Thuja can be used in non-sycotic diseases is true. Nevertheless, I am
speaking about exactly what Hahnemann suggested in the Materia Medica Pura
and the methods he used in the clinic. I will stand by my statements that
Hahnemann considered both HPV warts and chronic gonorrhea to be sycotic
diseases (rightly or wrongly is another question). If long term research
based on the traditional group case show the suppression of HPV causes a
set of symptoms that are clearly different than the suppression of chronic
gonorrhea I will support separating the two diseases. If the symptoms are
homogeneous with the traditional study of sycosis, I am going to leave well
enough alone and note the subspecies.

So I am advising caution in changing what has been done in the past. I
don't think we should automatically make radical changes and just use the
same names as the modern allopaths. I think such fundamental changes
require the long term collection of symptoms to see what agents cause
homogeneous symptoms and what agents cause heterogeneous symptom patterns.
So once again I ask: Does the suppression of scabies really cause a
syndrome that is totally different than the suppression of pimples and
boils? We all know that the microorganisms effecting the skin are not
pushed inside! Most of the time they are killed but the alarm reaction in
the vital force is not resolved by such methods. Suppression is a dynamic
state associated with negative changes in the internal terrain that
produces chronic symptoms. So, what are we looking at? The symptoms of
individual microorganisms or the general effects of the suppression of skin
infections on the vital force and internal terrain? Similar questions may
be asked about sycosis.

While I am advising caution about rejecting titles like psora and
sycosis, I am totally open to integrating new miasms in accordance to our
modern understanding. For example, chronic hepatitis is an obvious, wide
spread chronic miasma. I have been collecting a group anamnesis based the
symptoms of sufferers of chronic hepatitis and looking for possible chronic
genus remedies. I am doing this with a number of chronic miasms. So I
totally support the work of Dr. Ardavan in these areas! I am glad he is
doing this work and I am sure it will prove very useful. Nevertheless, I
wish to based my understanding of new miasms (like chronic hepatitis) on a
group case made up of the symptoms of many sufferers not only what is
written in allopathic books. This work cannot be done by one person alone.
We need a team of homoeopaths to work on the collective anamnesis of a
number of as yet unrecorded chronic miasms. To really understand them we
must use our homoeopathic methods.

I feel that my position is a middle path proposal. That is, go slow on
getting rid of traditional names like psora and sycosis, and go fast on
studying the various species involved in the traditional miasms. My advice
is to carefully review all the species involved in the traditional miasms
and see if their symptoms are homogeneous or heterogeneous and then decide
what is best. I think we should move quickly on the collection of data of
the unrecorded chronic miasms along with collecting information from group
case studies in the field. The traditional group anamnesis offers much more
information about the true nature of chronic miasms than any modern
pathology book! We should base any corrections of the older miasms, and the
introduction of new ones on collective case studies. We cannot just used
the symptoms found in allopathic books as they are not sufficient. They do
not contain the types of characteristics symptoms we need with mental
symptoms, locations, sensations, modalities, times, concomitants, etc. I
would also advise including studies of susceptibility factors, internal
terrain changes, spectrums of infection, pathways of disease, related
opportunistic infections, and the collective picture of chronic symptoms.

The collective pictures of some miasms may involve related species while
others may only involve a single organism. All chronic miasms, however,
involve auto-immune factors and immuno-deficiency states. Immuno-deficiency
states lead to the susceptibility to opportunistic infections and terrain
changes that make microorganisms progressively more virulent and
pathological. For example, is the HIV virus the sole cause of AIDS or a
terrain marker or is it just incidental? There is definitely a new miasm
here but is it caused by one microorganism in isolation from other factors?
What causes all the symptoms? One microorganism or a spectrum of related
organisms that thrive in the AIDS terrain? We all know that HIV usually
does not kill the patient directly. They die from an unhealthy terrain that
invites all sorts of microorganisms that end up killing them! Nevertheless,
the entire phenomena is still all based on the AIDS miasm. I think we have
to look at a bigger picture than the allopathic school.

I would like us to all think about these subject carefully. I am not
saying anyone is right or wrong nor suggesting I have all the answers. I
have said most of what I can say about this particular subject and I see no
reason to go on and on over the same ground. If someone would like to break
some new ground I am all ears.

Sincerely, David Little

[David Little]

Hello all,

I think it is best to explain my position on bringing the miasms up to
date so I am not misunderstood. I think we should think long and hard
before we through out names like psora and sycosis. Why? Because there is
over a century of observations by several generations of homoeopaths
involved in collecting the group symptoms of these diseases. Hahnemann
included the effects of the suppression of a variety of microorganisms
(mites, bacteria, fungi, viruses) under the general title "Psora". He knew
that the cause of scabies was different than the cause of ringworm but he
observed that the suppression of skin infections produced an unhealthy
inner terrain he called "internal psora". This unhealthy inner terrain
contributes to the latent and secondary symptoms of psora and opens the
sufferer to other opportunistic infections. Hahnemann observed the effects
of suppression and the corresponding terrain changes and found that they
produced a homogenous set of chronic symptoms.

Now some are suggesting that names like Psora should be rejected and we
should separate psora into perhaps, 15 or 20 skin miasms in accordance with
the allopathic classification of skin infections. A similar suggestion is
being made about sycosis. I my opinion Psora was never considered to be a
name for one microorganism, but rather, a name for a collection of
infections that share a similar terrain, similar disease pathways and
produce a homogeneous set of similar chronic symptoms on suppression.
*Psora is an internal terrain not a microorganism.* We have 178 years of
observations about the suppression skin diseases made by several
generations of homeopaths. We have the symptoms of a group case that spans
10,000s of persons over a century and half. We just can not throw out all
this collective experience so easily. The same thing may be said of sycosis.

My research shows that in the Materia Medica Pura Hahnemann said that
"bad gonorrhea" was caused by the sycosis and he suggested Thuja as a
remedy. I looked in the Paris casebooks and they show Hahnemann treating
"bad gonorrhea" with Thuja just as he suggested. Therefore, I came to the
conclusion that he thought bad gonorrhea is sycotic and Thuja a useful
remedy! It just that simple. That Thuja can be used in acute diseases, or
that Thuja can be used in non-sycotic diseases is true. Nevertheless, I am
speaking about exactly what Hahnemann suggested in the Materia Medica Pura
and the methods he used in the clinic. I will stand by my statements that
Hahnemann considered both HPV warts and chronic gonorrhea to be sycotic
diseases (rightly or wrongly is another question). If long term research
based on the traditional group case show the suppression of HPV causes a
set of symptoms that are clearly different than the suppression of chronic
gonorrhea I will support separating the two diseases. If the symptoms are
homogeneous with the traditional study of sycosis, I am going to leave well
enough alone and note the subspecies.

So I am advising caution in changing what has been done in the past. I
don't think we should automatically make radical changes and just use the
same names as the modern allopaths. I think such fundamental changes
require the long term collection of symptoms to see what agents cause
homogeneous symptoms and what agents cause heterogeneous symptom patterns.
So once again I ask: Does the suppression of scabies really cause a
syndrome that is totally different than the suppression of pimples and
boils? We all know that the microorganisms effecting the skin are not
pushed inside! Most of the time they are killed but the alarm reaction in
the vital force is not resolved by such methods. Suppression is a dynamic
state associated with negative changes in the internal terrain that
produces chronic symptoms. So, what are we looking at? The symptoms of
individual microorganisms or the general effects of the suppression of skin
infections on the vital force and internal terrain? Similar questions may
be asked about sycosis.

While I am advising caution about rejecting titles like psora and
sycosis, I am totally open to integrating new miasms in accordance to our
modern understanding. For example, chronic hepatitis is an obvious, wide
spread chronic miasma. I have been collecting a group anamnesis based the
symptoms of sufferers of chronic hepatitis and looking for possible chronic
genus remedies. I am doing this with a number of chronic miasms. So I
totally support the work of Dr. Ardavan in these areas! I am glad he is
doing this work and I am sure it will prove very useful. Nevertheless, I
wish to based my understanding of new miasms (like chronic hepatitis) on a
group case made up of the symptoms of many sufferers not only what is
written in allopathic books. This work cannot be done by one person alone.
We need a team of homoeopaths to work on the collective anamnesis of a
number of as yet unrecorded chronic miasms. To really understand them we
must use our homoeopathic methods.

I feel that my position is a middle path proposal. That is, go slow on
getting rid of traditional names like psora and sycosis, and go fast on
studying the various species involved in the traditional miasms. My advice
is to carefully review all the species involved in the traditional miasms
and see if their symptoms are homogeneous or heterogeneous and then decide
what is best. I think we should move quickly on the collection of data of
the unrecorded chronic miasms along with collecting information from group
case studies in the field. The traditional group anamnesis offers much more
information about the true nature of chronic miasms than any modern
pathology book! We should base any corrections of the older miasms, and the
introduction of new ones on collective case studies. We cannot just used
the symptoms found in allopathic books as they are not sufficient. They do
not contain the types of characteristics symptoms we need with mental
symptoms, locations, sensations, modalities, times, concomitants, etc. I
would also advise including studies of susceptibility factors, internal
terrain changes, spectrums of infection, pathways of disease, related
opportunistic infections, and the collective picture of chronic symptoms.

The collective pictures of some miasms may involve related species while
others may only involve a single organism. All chronic miasms, however,
involve auto-immune factors and immuno-deficiency states. Immuno-deficiency
states lead to the susceptibility to opportunistic infections and terrain
changes that make microorganisms progressively more virulent and
pathological. For example, is the HIV virus the sole cause of AIDS or a
terrain marker or is it just incidental? There is definitely a new miasm
here but is it caused by one microorganism in isolation from other factors?
What causes all the symptoms? One microorganism or a spectrum of related
organisms that thrive in the AIDS terrain? We all know that HIV usually
does not kill the patient directly. They die from an unhealthy terrain that
invites all sorts of microorganisms that end up killing them! Nevertheless,
the entire phenomena is still all based on the AIDS miasm. I think we have
to look at a bigger picture than the allopathic school.

I would like us to all think about these subject carefully. I am not
saying anyone is right or wrong nor suggesting I have all the answers. I
have said most of what I can say about this particular subject and I see no
reason to go on and on over the same ground. If someone would like to break
some new ground I am all ears.

Sincerely, David Little