Shaking the foundation of Hahnemann's theory of Miasms

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear Dr Shaddel,
What do you mean by anti-multimiasmatic?
Do you mean that it can be anti Psoric, anti Syph and anti Syc or a combination of these?
Regards

Soroush

[Shannon Nelson]

I also was confused by this.
You wrote: "Hahnemann has not introduced any remedy which is able to
cover and treat two dissimilar chronic dynamisms (Miasms)." But
numerous remedies are associated with more than one miasm, e.g. even
thuja (so strongly associated with sycotic) is under "syphilis" and
"psora" (tri-miasmatic), as are nit-ac, merc, and a number of others..
Even psorinum is down as tri-miasmatic. Perhaps there's a difference
in sources being used, or maybe I'm not understanding you? (I have
noticed that some authors are *much* more generous than others in
assigning remedies to miasms...) Can you say more?
Thanks,
Shannon

[F. Shaddel]

Dear Soroush
It was exactly the question that I received but as far as I discussed with sender, it means the same that you mentioned.
Kind Regards
Shaddel

Finrod wrote:

[muthu kumar]

discussed with sender, it means the same that you mentioned.
Why does this answer makes me feel so dumb? What am I missing here?

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear Dr Shaddel
It which case, based on the teachings of a number of people eg Sheilagh Creasy, and books such as Notes On Miasms by Dr PS Ortega, a lot of remedies are MULTI-Miasmatic - that is to say they can treat diseases based on different miasms.
If you look under GENERALS PSORA, SYC and SYPH, you have a number of remedies listed.
You can then cross eliminate in turn and you will be left with Psoric/ Syc, or Psoric/Syph or finally all three together which leaves you with the tri-miasmatic remedies.

Regards

Soroush

[F. Shaddel]

Dear Soroush
Thanks for your comment. It is completely correct about most of famous classical Homeopaths who believe on multi-miasmatic remedies but defenitely it is not true about Hahnemann himself. If you just have a look on "Chronic Diseases,..." written by Hahnemann himself in last year of his life and the remedies which he has introduced for Psora, Sycosis & Syphilis, you will realise that there is no similar remedy (Anti multi miasmatic). The list is also available in the beginning of Systemic Alphabetic Repertory of Boaninghausen.
Kind Regards
Shaddel

Finrod wrote:

[Shannon Nelson]

Then is it your position that others' later conclusions--about the
usefulness of certain remedies for more than one miasm--are in error?
If so, why?
Thanks,
Shannon

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear Dr Shaddel
I think we need to be careful of what we mean by MULTIMIASMATIC.
Miasms can mean infections or the aftermath of such infections.
The modern use is the aftermath of infections.
Miasms can be active or dormant.
So let us have a good complex situation. A person who has psora is then affected by Hn's Gon and then Syph. The symptoms of these are then suppressed.
He then has a child.
This child will have all the three miasms.
The child then attends a homoeopaths with a set of symptoms. Some aspects of all three miasms will be seen, but one miasmatic set would be paramount.
It is these symptoms that need to be addressed. It is unlikely that you will find one remedy to cover all symptoms of all the three remedies in one go.
So different remedies are required to address the different miasmatic set of symptoms from time to time.
In a parallel situation, you may find that something like Lyc, will address Psoric sx in one, Syc symptoms in another and Syph symptoms in a third patient.
So it is called a tri-miasmatic or multimiasmatic remedy.
=======
Have you read Dr Shahrdar's articles on Minutus?
Hn got some things completely wrong - although his ideas were correct he did not have access to microscope and the correct knowledge of the diseases caused by micro organisms and he got his facts confused and incorrect. Dr Shahrdar throws a lot of light on this.
As a generalisation Hn has put almost everything with skin symptoms as PSORA. However, his has specifics for the treatment of syph and gonn and he deals with then with a very few remedies. Yet for PSORA (his multiheaded Hydra) he has many remedies. In fact when you study Dr Shahrdar's articles you will see what a leap forward that is for us. Because Psora is not one disease but the aftermath of infections with different micro-organisms. And of course Sycosis is the aftermath of HPV (warts) infection.
Regards

Soroush

[F. Shaddel]

Dear Soroush
Great comment. Well done, you have actually mentioned a very crucial point in understanding the difference of concept of Miasm in Hahnemann's view and almost all other Homeopaths.
When Hahnemann is talking about chronic miasms (Psora, Sychosis & Syphilis), he is talking about some real chronic infective disorders which exist in the outside world and affect the people in a special way and need a special Homeopathic approach (Miasmatic treatment which is a sort of Genus Epidemicus)
But when most of other Homeopaths (Not all of them) are talking about miasms, it is a sort of classification of remedies & patients which help you sometimes to find the similimum. So it is what Homeopaths have made for facilitating their job in finding the similimum and it does not talk about any specific real disorder in outside world.
For better clarification give the answer of this question in Hahnemannian miasmatic method and other definitions of miasms
Patient has Sycosis, what is his remedy?
1. Hahnemann's answer: ?
2. Other Homeopaths: ?
if you study the chronic diseases of Dr Hahnemann, you realise that Hahnemann would immediately answer the first question as THUJA. But if you ask it from other Homeopaths, they say, we do not know yet. We should refer to "Totality of Symptoms"
Perhaps in the first look it seems that the answer of Hahnemann is not as scientific as answer of other Homeopaths because it is always better to refer to individual "Totality of symptoms" of patient. But is it really always better? If you ask from experienced Homeopaths who have worked with epidemics, they simply tell you in epidemics you can not rely on individual "Totality of Symptoms" (Please refer to Genus Epidemicus written by David Little). instead you have to do your homework before on more than one patient of the same epidemic and find the similimum of epidemic and then prescribe the same remedy to all patients of that special epidemic.
It is exactly what Hahnemann has done about Sycosis. He has done his homework in 12 years and upon reviewing records of patients of last 5000 years and eventually found out that Thuja is similimum of epidemic of Sycosis. So he does not need (and also it is misleading) to refer again to individual "totality of symptoms" of Sycosis in new patient with Sycosis. He prescribes Thuja right away and gets the best result.
Likewise about Syphilis and Psora he has done his homework on previous recorded cases of these two epidemics and found out Merc for Syphilis and 48 remedies for Psora. So if somebody ask below questions from Hahnemann, his answer would be righ away as follow:
1. Patient has syphilis, What is his remedy? Hahnemann's answer: Mercurius family
2. Patient has Psora, What is his remedy? one of the 48 remedies. Specially Sulph, Hep (also Carb-v) or Sep (also Con) plus a considerable number of other 43 smaller antipsoric remedies.(And there is no muti-antimiasmatic remedy)
But what is the answer of other Homeopath? Answer: We do not know before considering individual "Totality of Symptoms"
Now perhaps you are asking yourself: "OK I got the difference between Hahnemann's view and other Homeopaths but who has told only there are three chronic miasms. Hahnemann was developing and perhaps he had introduced more chronic miasms in 7th edition of Organon"
It is absolutely sensible. Unfortunately he never wrote Organon 7 so we never can be sure what would be in Organon 7. But who is eligible to suggest new miasms out of these three. I believe a person who has done his homework & epidemic research for several years on previous recorded cases of epidemic chronic infections (exactly like what Hahnemann has done) and if S/he found new miasms and their Genus Epidemicus, he or she will be eligible to introduce them to Homeopathy circle and it needs to stand the test of time and also successful application in practice as well. Then it could be added to Hahnemann's theory of Miasms.
I do not know all Homeopaths (However I know most of them) and the only person who has done this homework and research compatible to Hahnemann's idea is Ardavan. So as far as I know, he is the only eligible alive Homeopath who can give comment on possibility of new chronic miasms and the way for finding them.
However I have to add, when Ardavan for the first time shared his idea about possibility of other chronic miasms (Like prescribing Nit-ac to any patient who has had history of infection with EBV- Comparable with prescribing Thuja to any patient with Sycosis) 6-7 years ago (In Holistic Medical Centre in Iran) with me, I gave him my humble opinion that however the way of investigation is correct but the diseases that you have chosen (inclusive most of viral chronic infections) do not have the potential & capacity to be a separate chronic miasms beside the Psora, Sycosis and Syphilis. I see that now he has adjusted his theory and use the results of his Genus epidemicus researches as a complementary way for finding the similimum (when there is paucity of symptoms) instead of introducing new chronic miasms along with Psora, Syphilis & Sycosis. So I am under this impression that if somebody ask Ardavan now "Patient has history of EBV infection, what is his remedy?", he does not recommend him any more to prescribe Nit-ac right away and no need to consider the individual "Totality of symptoms".
But Ardavan has opened a new way (in the other word, he has revived the Hahnemann's way) of looking at chronic infections and only if we could find the right diseases and correct chronic infections which have the potential to be a separate and new chronic miasms, and then investigate them with Ardavan's method, we will be perhaps able to add something to Hahnemann's theory of Miasms.
On the basis of my personal experience on more than 10,000 patients, the only current infections which have the potential to be a separate and new chronic miasms are:
Multiple Sclerosis (It definitely does not answer properly to Hahnemannian miasmatic treatment) and HIV.
So in summery, still only those three orginal chronic infective disorders are compatible with Hahnemannian theory of Miasm and non of the newly introduced miasms like Cancer, Chemical, Polution,... have not passed the above investigation process of Chronic Genus Epidemicus properly.
Also perhaps you are asking yourself now: "OK I got them all but who has told that Hahnemann's idea and method is correct. Hahnemann was also a human being and could make a mistake"
It is also completely correct. The only way that we can judge which theory of Miasm (Hahnemann's or others) is correct, is applying them in practice. We should never forget our main duty as a doctor and waste our time in useless theoretical discussions (Organon, Aphorism 2).
Fortunately we have plenty amount of experience about non Hahnemannian theory of miasm but unfortunately very less Homeopaths have practised in pure Hahnemannian theory of Miasm till date. In Iran some of us (first generation of recent Iranian Homeopaths) had the luck to practice for several years in classical (But not Hahnemannian method) and after that for about a decade in Pure Hahnemannian method. On the basis of my personal experience and upon the experience of my colleagues (Who you know most of them) and also feedbacks of our students & patients, the Hahnemannian theory of Miasm is considerably more successful in treatment of complex chronic cases suffering a combination of chronic ailments like Hypertension, Tumor, Epilepsy, Rheumatoid problems, CHD,... than ordinary classical Homeopathy. I am trying to provide some such case report from my personal archive and put them on my weblog for sharing with your experiences.
Regards
Shaddel
6/12/2007
Finrod wrote:

[F. Shaddel]

Dear Shannon
Thanks for comment. My position is that they are different with Hahnemann's theory. Which one is correct, only the success in practice and clinical benchmarkings could answer. I just sent a complete comment in this regard to minutus in replying soroush's comment. Please refer to the same
Regards
Shaddel

Robert & Shannon Nelson wrote: