Psycosis, Psittacosis & Common Gonorrhea 3 (long)

[muthu kumar]

It is that time of the year when - like the return of the King- all
things that go around start coming around – and we have the self-same
miasm discussion.
Of course this time around there is the rare pleasure of seeing 2 of
the "Top Ten Greats" slugging it out in the ring and I feel
exhilarated like I have a ring-side view of Rocky Balboa belting it out….

Last year when I suggested that this whole miasm business is wrought
with confusion and need to be revamped I was shot down like a bandit
caught in a border town. Now looks like civilization is finally
spreading westward…

Let me say what I have said always and always got the bound volumes
of "Chronic diseases" and Organon "6TH edition" thrown at me…

Instead of squabbling over what is sycosis (aka psychosis???) or
whether Hahnemann made a mistake or not- what we need is a minimum
common principle to guide us in treating chronic diseases that does
not get mired in clashes and is not so confusing that people never use
it apart from paying some lip service so that they can still be
considered faithful to Hahnemann.
I think all of us are agreed on suppression and that it can lead to a
lot of problems. Whether suppression or not, infections and other
things lead to chronic problems is something mostly no one could argue
against.

That there is a lot of history behind these miasms– no one doubts.
At the same time not even a single one of the current top homeopaths
would agree with another as to what any one of these miasm is, how
many there are, how they came to be and how they can be cured.
Everyone acknowledges them and proposes their take on it. There are
psoras. Pseudo-psoras and sycosis, cancer, typhoid and then a
combination of all these or some of these plus whatever each one has
experience with – come on – where is the much flaunted "science" in
this Tower of Babel?
Is this how we present a theory of chronic disease? To ourselves and
to the wicked world?

There are some who say that there is 150 years of experience behind
this confusion… so what? There was more than a 1000 year old history
for Galenic allopathy before Hahnemann and he was not thinking about
that when he wanted to change it.
Once we have decided that the edifice is crumbling and needs a
thorough once-over – why not take a fresh look at it – we may differ
from Hahnemann in substance but not in spirit-

Instead of calling the suppression of everything under the sun as
Psora – except the kitchen sink which is sycosis and bath tub which is
syphilis- etc. perhaps this is the time to rethink this whole issue
and come to some rational explanations… What is wrong in using regular
infectious diseases classification and calling miasm as a suppression
of such and such? By doing this we gain being in tune with current
research going on so that there is some rational give-and-take among
sciences. Study of microbiology, immunology etc, is not allopathy and
no one need to have qualms about becoming a turn-coat. It is part of
life science research. Yes we may lose some by giving up the existing
classification . At the same time we rid ourselves a lot of
unnecessary baggage we have been carrying as well. Less confusion
overall. Even in the context of the present discussion, if stalwarts
like David and Ardavan have different ideas about miasms, what can we
say about dummies like me with IQ in the 65 range? Who is going to
guide who and how do we know that it is right?

In homeopathy we understand disease as an interaction of our vital
force with whatever is affecting us – virus or bacteria or harmful
chemicals etc. The acute disease symptoms are a result of the
interaction ;the interaction might vary from individual to individual.
In the same way the chronic effects of the infections also vary from
individual to individual. Well let me accept that that the chronic
effects might fall into some defined categories and that if CLEARLY
AND CLEVERLY analyzed might allow us to prescribe based on the
classification rather than on the symptoms. But my heartfelt sympathy
for anyone undertaking to classify this-

Not only there are many more infections coming up but also treated
with increasingly pernicious drugs, vaccines etc. that separating out
any thing into any reasonable classification – believe me – is well
nigh impossible. What are the symptoms of disease, of suppression, of
the allopathic drugs themselves? In the absence of any such
classification of documented chronic effects what could we do now?
1) As someone mentioned a tripartite classification – classification
as those that just cause deficiency , cause overgrowths and cause
ulcerative conditions is as good as any. Once again we are only
looking at heuristics at this point to guide us in treating chronic
disease and not "the truth and nothing but the truth so help me God"
kind of final say on chronic disease.
2) More than any other field, study of infections and immunology had
taken off really only after the time of Hahnemann. I strongly think
that had he been alive today he would have reclassified and redone the
whole approach. Once we have accepted that there should be change- why
should we try to fit everything into the same mold that was created
when none of these advances were in place. This is like having decided
to modernize transportation, just because carriages have always been
drawn by horses for 2000 years, trying to create motors and autos in
the shape of horses as iron horses. Future classification should be
based on either the kind of organisms- viruses, bacteria, fungi,
spirochetes etc. Or it could be based on the immune response,
biochemical and patho-physiological changes associated with each kind
of infection and its aftermath. Search for your common, group
anamnesis in these parameters. May be also associate the kind of
sensations and symptoms with these. This will give you a solid back
ground to classify. It will allow us to prescribe based on some
objective evidence, allow us to test our theories and hypotheses based
on some verifiable fact and stop interminable hair-splitting
discussions of miasms. (Most importantly might even stop Rajan
Sankaran coming up with more delusions or vital sensation explanations)
Recognize that Hahnemann, who for all his greatness and foresight
still had to work within the limits of the science of his time. They
were based on a very rudimentary understanding of infections and
immunology however great the man who defined the system.
I do not doubt that there are deep acting and anti-miasmatic remedies.
I fully believe in their power in treating chronic diseases. But I do
not need the kind of miasm theory we have currently to explain this
curative action.

Trying to keep a faulty system in place to guide us while we are still
trying to create a new one will be as successful and appealing as
trying to be faithful to the spouse you want to divorce and courting
the next one at the same time. This requires a lot of finesse I
certainly do not have.
By the way first get rid of the word "miasm" - it carries so much
swampy imagery and bears the marks of the baggage it had borne...

[VR VR]

Bravo
Vera

hahnemannian2002 wrote:
It is that time of the year when - like the return of the King- all
things that go around start coming around – and we have the self-same
miasm discussion.
Of course this time around there is the rare pleasure of seeing 2 of
the "Top Ten Greats" slugging it out in the ring and I feel
exhilarated like I have a ring-side view of Rocky Balboa belting it out….
---------------------------------
New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.

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

[muthu kumar]

Hi David-

I would not expect anything more than a post like this from you!!!
I know that you were not slugging it out with anyone- and I know that
you do not in the least look like Rocky Balbao. The beauty is in the
eye of the beholder - as you said it.

I just tried to inject a semblance of humor into this - of course with
you in the picture - why bother...you are too much of the serious
researcher for such levity.

I wish you and Ardavan good luck in your * serious * endeavors. As
long as your earnest hard work throws some light on Hahnemann's
miasma theory (which for all of its 150 years of experience behind it
still leaves me confused) and gives people like me some guidance I
welcome it and support it. ( see how serious and supportive I am).

Piet posted a link where in I found a good article stating how mineral
deficiencies causing changes in the inner terrain cause miasms and all
the miasms are in fact such deficiencies in varying degrees. And there
have been theories and theories about this- Rajan Sankaran has his own
take, HA Roberts had his take and so did MLTyler. Some talk about
endocrine dysfunction, some talk about embryological layers, in India
there have been attempts to classify Psora according to Tridoshas and
Seven tissues. In this forum I have even come across references to
Chakras in relation to this.

Why all of this? Cannot we use something that is current and devoid of
all this confusion, mystery and mumbo-jumbo? By this I do not mean go
to allopathic way of classifying diseases or infections, But something
that does not necessitate that I carry dictionaries published in 1850
to understand them. Our fundamental contribution is NOT going from
disease names and pathological classifications but giving primacy to
symptoms. That is where we need to look at for this classification -
not whether something is skin infection or venereal. May be it made
sense then - certainly not now.

You might say that the people who differ in their ideas about Psora
were still recognizing the basic classification ( like you and Ardavan
differ in details but accept the basic premise of "something" called
Psora).

But the Devil is in the details. Everyone can say they acknowledge
Psora but start talking about different things. This is like saying
zinc phos, calc phos, Kali phos and Mag phos are the same - they all
have Phos in it.

What I wanted to point out is how even in the present discussion this
issue has been chasing its tail - from cond.lata to acuminata- we have
not even gone to analysing Psora yet, the multi-headed monster. Now
Ardavan has this new MV classification and also accepts Psora for the
infectious states that could not be slotted. What do we have now?
Classified Psora and Unclassified Psora? Or Psora - the hydra with
some classified heads and some secretive heads?

What is Psora then - a place- holder for all the unknown- a
miscellaneous garbage bin where you throw UFOs?(Unidentified
Frustrating Objects?)

And as I have pointed out there has not been a single post in this
group in the past 2 years where some one discussed a case from a
miasmatic point of view and suggested based on so and so miasmatic
symptom this medicine was given, There have been recommendations based
on biochemics, periodic table affinities, delusions and even on
meditative (sic) provings.

That shows how central and crystal clear this whole miasmatic concept
is in practitioners' minds. That is what my eye beholds -with or
without my lenses

At least we have one thing in common - for all my reservations about
certain things and hyperboles - I know that Homeopathy is the best
medicine available and like you I am also trying to make the system
accessible to everyone and simplify it where possible so that the
central law holds sway.

YOu do not need to respond to this. I know that we have had our say
and you are busy. This is more to bring out in the open what I know
some others in this group also feel.
-- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, David Little wrote:
out….
First of
who are
date and
basically
case
miasms and
in use
certain
acute
about
of the
very
not mere
bring
that
the
interpretations
warts all
symptoms. I
chronic
ALL this
generations of
that we
signs,
brought up
the
just to
is the
everything
under
warts
study is
These are
and
miasm.
separating old
however, is
infections
do not
than we
symptoms
find
infections
all for
with
results. It
intention
prescribe on
aphorism 82
infections.
needed
group
behind the
work but
is not
includes
difficult
practice
follow
complicated
classification
Hahnemann
immunology had
use of
miasms. He
supplied
diseases as
will
many
what I
Studying
these
"splitting
correct
may not
of his
limiting but
is that
insidious
remedies for
group case.
This is a
diseases and
including a
never
What
term for
wish
infections"
Hahnemann
world.
in the
test
record
confirmed.
their
our
these
toxic
instead
treat
Because
are
diseases
Discussion
That is
take place
Hahnemann200. He
drag
Homoeopathy
in any
this
arising out
consequential,
howsoever
no more
Homoeopathic

[muthu kumar]

OK Thanks
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, David Little wrote:
issues. And
clinical
is the
terrain that
microorganisms,
a more
cause
acute and
in the
have to
times.
interested in
important. If
there is
nature
Miasms
symptoms, but
of the
abort
but it
proximate
acute,
of skin
validity of
case
they show
(Organon
common
tireless work
up to
matter.
all
discussing
chronic
classification
Hering
what we
has
miasms as
abort and
part of
working on
case in
become
miasms are
no more
Homoeopathic

[Shannon Nelson]

On May 17, 2006, at 3:03 AM, David Little wrote:
Hi David,
What observations have you made about the differences in symptom
picture and expected outcome between conditions (or that part of them)
having a miasmatic base, and those having a base in nutritional
deficiency (in the patient and/or forebears)? I suppose that one
exacerbate the other? I've assumed that history of deficiency would
give rise to a psoric picture--what's your observation?
Thanks!
Shannon