Pseudo Psoric Miasm?

Richard Nash- Shannon · Sun Jul 12, 2009 1:38 am

Hello all,
In an attempt to get away from any feeling they are kicking a dead horse with regards to any specific subject they might be discussing, I am attempting to "change" the subject itself.
(And no I do not actually endorse the act of kicking a dead horse)

I have been asked several times in the last two years where the evolution of the Tub. miasm. emanates. I thought I knew, and then I started digging and came up against a bit of a brick-wall specific to exactly when and where.

Any and all references would greatly appreciated.

Peace and prosperity, Rik

Joy Lucas · Post by **Joy Lucas** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 11:29 am

Do you want to start and tell us your own thoughts first so we have a starting point?

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/

Richard Nash- Shannon · Sun Jul 12, 2009 6:30 pm

Hello Joy,
I had been under the "assumption" that it was the work of J.H. Allen while at the Hering Medical College in Chicago in the 1890's. He was the president of the IHA at the turn of the century and I am trying to isolate the dates in which this addition to the miasmic model was made and if he alone was responsible for it as an idea. And further if he was not, then who did he bounce this idea off of? Certainly the minutes of the annual conferences or perhaps the old journals of the day would help ascertain who he may have worked with in this regard but my journal collection is limited from those days to what I mostly have in EH. Does anyone have any historical references in letter form perhaps between himself and another Homeopath?
He was a great prescriber and researcher of his day but I am having the most trouble thinking that he alone submitted to the Homeopathic community of his day this idea without any serious and heavy dialogue.
Any feed back would be greatly appreciated.

Peace and prosperity, Rik
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Joy Lucas wrote:

Joy Lucas · Post by **Joy Lucas** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:18 pm

I think you'd have to begin with the work of Koch - he gave it the name Tuberculinum I believe.

If you have Clarke's Dictionary of MM you will see some references there - rather a lot to type out for me

unless someone can copy and paste for you.

Best wishes, Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/

Joy Lucas · Post by **Joy Lucas** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:36 pm

Correction on my last post, sorry - Burnett came earlier with his bacillinum. Apologies.

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/

Richard Nash- Shannon · Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:42 pm

Hello Joy,
Thank you for your response. The work of Swan, Koch and Burnett all worked towards developing the sx picture of Tub. the rx. Where I have lost my way is how JH Allen came to decide that this would indeed be grounds for a new miasma. It appears that Kochs work was around 1880-1882 which would place near the time Allen maybe was working on Psuedo-psora as an idea. But Chronic Miasms was published in 1908 so my assumption is that he must have written or presented something in those intervening years.
Any ideas?

Peace and prosperity, Rik
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Joy Lucas wrote:

Post by **Soroush Ebrahimi** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:51 pm

I would encourage everybody to read Ardavan's writings on Miasms.
http://www.minutus.org/library/article_ ... n+Shahrdar

________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Nash- Shannon
Sent: 13 July 2009 18:42
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Minutus] Re: Pseudo Psoric Miasm?
Hello Joy,
Thank you for your response. The work of Swan, Koch and Burnett all worked towards developing the sx picture of Tub. the rx. Where I have lost my way is how JH Allen came to decide that this would indeed be grounds for a new miasma. It appears that Kochs work was around 1880-1882 which would place near the time Allen maybe was working on Psuedo-psora as an idea. But Chronic Miasms was published in 1908 so my assumption is that he must have written or presented something in those intervening years.
Any ideas?

Peace and prosperity, Rik

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com , Joy Lucas wrote:

jmateo01 · Post by **jmateo01** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:07 pm

In Part 3 of a series of articles on the miasms posted on Whole Health Now, David Little writes the following:

In the preface of Charles Hempel's translation of the Organon, Constantine Hering recorded that late in his life Hahnemann made further discoveries and developed a new aspect of the theory of Psora with the introduction of a new miasm he called Pseudo-psora. Hering wrote:

"Hahnemann distinguishes the venereal miasms as syphilis and sycosis; and also subdivides psora with pseudo-psora.".

Unfortunately, it seems Hahnemann was not able to fully *flesh out* his theory of pseudo psora within the remaining time he had on this earth... Others (Allen, Burnett, etc.) picked up the mantle in the intervening years.

Read David's complete series Miasms in Classical Homeopathy here:

http://www.wholehealthnow.com/homeopath ... ms-01.html

Richard Nash- Shannon · Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:28 pm

Hello,
Thank you for the input. Although I am still in the dark about how other researchers ended up taking this very tiny non amount of information, which is almost just a name, pseudo-psora, and let it evolve into the tubercular miasm. Certainly Hahnemann was not thinking about tuberculosis when he was extricating a subdivision of psora. Or was he? This is where the information ends and where I am attempting to bridge what we know, with what we think we know and be able to clearly identify what we don't know.
The summation could be that Hahnemann would not agree with the advent of the tubercular miasm! What if his pseudo psora idea that was so little known, is nothing close to what was done with it 45-60 years after his death?
This would represent more than a quandary for us, no?

Peace and prosperity, Rik
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "jmateo01" wrote:

Post by **Soroush Ebrahimi** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:18 pm

Read also Ardavan's writings on http://www.repertoriumvirosum.com/

________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Nash- Shannon
Sent: 13 July 2009 20:29
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Minutus] Re: Pseudo Psoric Miasm?
Hello,
Thank you for the input. Although I am still in the dark about how other researchers ended up taking this very tiny non amount of information, which is almost just a name, pseudo-psora, and let it evolve into the tubercular miasm. Certainly Hahnemann was not thinking about tuberculosis when he was extricating a subdivision of psora. Or was he? This is where the information ends and where I am attempting to bridge what we know, with what we think we know and be able to clearly identify what we don't know.
The summation could be that Hahnemann would not agree with the advent of the tubercular miasm! What if his pseudo psora idea that was so little known, is nothing close to what was done with it 45-60 years after his death?
This would represent more than a quandary for us, no?

Peace and prosperity, Rik

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com , "jmateo01" wrote: