Germs and contagion [was: Polio vaccine

[Shannon Nelson]

? "... fear of disease only emanating from external sources"? Where did you get the idea of "only", even tho I have specifically said otherwise? That's the other reason I duck out; I say things, and what comes back to me sometimes bears so little resemblance to what I *thought* I said--it gets frustrating. But--what do you mean by "only emanating from external sources"--did you think I've been denying the role of susceptibility, even tho I've specifically said otherwise?

How disease occurs from a homeopathic point of view: Hahnemann was unequivocal in his acceptance of the role of "germs" in some types of disease, and also in the fact of contagion, with some types of disease. Do you disagree?
Shannon

[Joy Lucas]

It was your endearing comments about eating road kill, and drinking stagnant pond water, antibiotics being friendly and some jokey reference to placebo (with 5 !!!!!), but mainly implying that you get disease from eating road kill etc, = you get diseases from external sources regardless of susceptibility so lets plant the fear factor and muddle up the ideas about disease origins.

So you want to talk about maism now and susceptibility - fine by me. Have to wait cos I am away for a while so what does Hahnemann say about contagion? Some references maybe?

Joy

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

[Shannon Nelson]

Joy, those "endearing comments" were not made for fun, they were made as a very specific illustration of the idea that, although in *most* situations susceptibility is *primary* (we live in a sea of microbes, and most of them are not harmful to most of us, and many are even helpful)--but there are some microbes and some situations where most people are susceptible. And I have also tried to say that most of us have "windows" of susceptibility, so between those two factors I am not inclined to completely dismiss the role of "germs." Call it planting fear if you like, but that is not what I would call it. I don't find it fearful, only useful information.

Miasm, where did I mention that recently... No matter.
What does Hahnemann say? I assume I will be quoting nothing at you that you're not already completely familiar with, so not quite sure why the exercise, but okay... For the sake of the "students." (Sorry for this wide-spaced formatting--I don't know how to put it back to single space.)

(1) From: little@simillimum.com

Subject: Re: [H] Re: viruses/ Hahnemann on Cholera

Date: May 23, 2006 12:52:35 AM CDT

To: homeopathy@homeolist.com
"Snow was a believer in the germ theory of cholera, as opposed to the

then-dominant miasma theory. He first publicised his theory in an essay On

the Mode of Communication of Cholera in 1849. In 1855 a second edition was published, with a much more elaborate investigation of the effect of the

water-supply in the Soho, London epidemic of 1854.
By talking to local residents he identified the cause of the outbreak as

the public water pump on Broad Street (now Broadwick Street), and it was

disabled by removing the pump handle. Although this action has been

popularly reported as ending the outbreak, the epidemic was already in rapid

decline, as explained by Snow himself:"
Hello all,
[...] . Hahnemann wrote the following in the Cause and Prevention of the Asiatic Cholera in 1831.
"The most striking examples of infection and rapid spread of cholera take place as it is well know, and as the pubic journals likewise inform us, in this say: On board ships-in those confined spaces, filled with mouldy watery vapours, the cholera miasm finds a favorable element for its multiplication, and grows into an enormously increased brood of the excessively minute, invisible, living creatures, so inimical to human life, of which, the contagious matter of the cholera most probably consists - on board these ships, I say, this concentrated aggravated miasm kills several of the crew; the others, however, being frequently exposed to the danger of infections and thus gradually habituated to it, at length become fortified against it, and no longer liable to be infected.

In this article Hahnemann raises several interesting ideas. The first is that the infections agent of cholera are "excessively minute, invisible creatures" that can multiply in the right conditions. He also notes that some persons seem to become immune to the infection. [...]
(2) The fact that he named two of the three major miasms as "venereal" would seem to indicate that he considered them contagious, wouldn't it?

There are more examples, but these should be enough to make my point--that, although he emphatically placed the greatest emphasis upon the "terrain", susceptibility, he also did "believe in" both contagion and also little noxious beasties that today we call (various sorts of) microbes. Some of the things that we now ascribe to microbes, he considered to be "energetic"--well hey, nobody's perfect.

Shannon

[Joy Lucas]

Fine except for what is highlighted below + where does he talk about contagion per se? + what microbes and some situations are you referring to (for most people) + you final paragraph is your own invention which I won't comment on.

Susceptibility is directly related to miasm so my choice of word that doesn't appear in yours.
Joy

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

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Joy,
Your highlights: " the others, however, being frequently exposed to the danger of infections and thus gradually habituated to it, at length become fortified against it, and no longer liable to be infected.
Yes, and I will repeat, I understand (still, again, and as always) that Hahnemann--with my agreement and yours--emphasis the primacy of susceptibility (I add the caveat "in most situations"). The fact that we have the ability to habituate, in fact, explains *why* susceptibility is primary *in most situations*. Where the organism (e.g. person) has *not* had the opportunity (whether through lack of ability or through lack of sufficient time) to habituate, *exposure* and *microbes* are then in fact primary, can overwhelm the (insufficient) defenses. Which part of this last paragraph do you disagree with, and why?
Hm, I'm repeating myself again...

E.g. (1): " [...] . Hahnemann wrote the following in the Cause and Prevention of the Asiatic Cholera in 1831.
E.g. (2), I wrote (see below):
"(2) The fact that he named two of the three major miasms as "venereal" would seem to indicate that he considered them contagious, wouldn't it?" If you disagree this venereal transmission is an example of contagion, please explailn?
E.g. venereal diseases; e.g. cholera. To keep things simple, I will stay for the moment within these bounds. One can "catch" neither any venereal disease nor cholera (just for example) without exposure to the microbes.
? Which part of this is my own invention? My final paragraph is:
"There are more examples, but these should be enough to make my point--that, although he emphatically placed the greatest emphasis upon the "terrain", susceptibility, he also did "believe in" both contagion and also little noxious beasties that today we call (various sorts of) microbes. Some of the things that we now ascribe to microbes, he considered to be "energetic"--well hey, nobody's perfect.
None of this is my invention, but maybe dealing with the prior points will make my meaning there clearer. (Or maybe not.)
Shannon

[Joy Lucas]

So how do you explain (from your point of view re contagion) how
dynamic, i.e. chronic disease develops, from the inherited miasm where
no microbes have been involved.

Will come back to this later, am away for awhile.

Joy

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

[Shannon Nelson]

Chronic disease is a separate consideration.
I was only resisting the idea that Sheri keeps trying to put through, that no microbes have *any* role in any disease. (And wondering whether it's these same people putting forth the idea that no cases of polio ever had anything to do with contagion or any virus.)

Shannon

[Liz Brynin]

Dear Joy
Now there's a strange question! The miasms fit very well with Shannon's view of contagion and microbes being the origin of disease. Is it not true that all the miasms are the result of a previous contagious disease? Psora (from scabies) Medorrhinum (from gonorrhoea) Syphilinum (from syphilis) Tuberculinum (from TB). Carcinosin seems to be a combination of all the above, and even Sankaran's classification of new miasms like Malaria and leprosy also come from contagious diseases.
It would seem that these germs are powerful and have far-reaching consequences, into our very genetic make-up and so on, down through the generations. And without the original contagious disease, no miasm to pass on.
Liz

[Joy Lucas]

You are still not getting the susceptibility issue are you - so called 'contagion' lies within the individual. You are still putting all the emphasis on the microbe. I know you don't read the Organon but you should really - starting with § 11 should suffice here but do keep reading further, until the end even.

Joy

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

[Joy Lucas]

We get the drift that you are resisting. Firstly I don't think Sheri has ever said such a statement, secondly I do not see why chronic disease is suddenly a separate issue - the dynamic disease will either present as acute or chronic. In the acute phase you have individual (often resulting from poor living habits), sporadic (can be precipitated by changes in weather/climate, exposure etc), endemic (often involving a strong link where there are floods, famine, catastrophes in general, war), epidemic - as these usually involve similar sx amongst people one needs to carefully examine all kinds of exciting causes and 'germs' as you have called them could well be low down on the list but all these other factors contribute far more to opening up susceptibility - the 'germs' themselves cannot do that - if you are saying that can do that how do you know and if you know then explain it or at the very least prove it.

Chronic disease can evolve out of any of the above situations + obviously other causes as well but the same principle holds - you have to have the disposition and in acute states it is that very same disposition that will either help you recover quickly or not or worse succumb entirely.

So it's all back to square one - how you prove the so called contagion of polio or any other germ/microbe. Exposure to microbes is nothing without the susceptibility. How many times has one been in a swimming pool and gulped the 'scummy' water and nothing happens

Joy

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