suppression of gonorrhea
Re: suppression of gonorrhea
has anybody seen in practice the problems arising after suppression of gonorrhea? Dr Shardar wrote in one of his articles that there is a difference between the common (Neisserian) gonorrhea and the sycotic gonorrhea as it was called by Hahnemann. I have seen quite a lot of cases of suppressed gonorrhea in practice, but i am not sure if what i have seen is really a complication after suppressed gonorrhea or another problem which appeared independently? it would be interesting to hear the opinion of Dr Shardar himself.
-
Lynn Cremona
- Posts: 633
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 10:00 pm
Re: suppression of gonorrhea
This from Will Taylor's website
http://similibus.org/chronicmiasms7
excerpt:
"These excrescences ... usually, but not always, attended with a sort of gonorrhoea* from the urethra ...
*The miasm of the other common gonorrhoeas seems not to penetrate the whole organism, but only to locally stimulate the urinary organs. (Hahenmann, Chronic Diseases, p.83)
Sycosis is not related to the disease we today call Gonorrhea; and Medorrhinum - the nosode of Gonorrhea, introduced by Swan in 1842 - is not the nosode of Sycosis.
This is essential, as many historical and contemporary efforts to describe Sycosis, have been based on the pathogenesis of Medorrhinum, on the mistaken assumption that this were the nosode of the primary disease. This has resulted in unfortunate severe distortions in many existing descriptions of the Sycotic miasm.
The term "gonorrhea" is derived from the Greek gones (sex organ) + rrhoia (discharge). In Hahnemann's day, this term referred merely to any discharge from the genitals, and was not used to describe a specific disease in the nosological sense.
The diplococcus bacterium Neisseria gonorrhoeae was first described in 1876, by German physician Albert Neisser , from urethral and conjunctival discharges - 48 years after the publication of Hahnemann's Chronic Diseases, and 33 years after Hahnemann's death.
The term "Gonorrhea" at this time, was formally adopted as the specific nosological term for this sexually transmited disease.
Chlamydia trachomatis - responsible for mucupurulent urethritides (gonorrheas) readily clinically confusable with those of Gonorrhea - was first described in 1935, but was only associated with "non-specific urethritis" in the late 1970's.
These - Neisseria gonorrhea and Chlamydia trachomatis - were the "[acute] miasms [i.e., infectious diseases] of the other common gonorrhoeas [which] seem not to penetrate the whole organism, but only to locally stimulate the urinary organs".
Sycosis is "usually, but not always, attended with a sort of [gones + rrhoia]" - but the principal characteristic of the primary disease is the characteristic excresences, "more rarely ... dry and like warts, more frequently soft, spongy, emitting a specifically fetid fluid (sweetish and almost like herring-brine), bleeding easily, and in the form of a coxcomb or a cauliflower. These, with males, sprout forth on the glans and on, or below, the prepuce, but with women, on the parts surrounding the pudenda; and the pudenda themselves, which are then swollen, are covered often by a great number of them." ((Hahnemann, Chronic Diseases, p.83))
From this description, we can clearly recognize Sycosis to be the disease we today call Condyloma accuminata or venereal wart disease, attributed to human papillomavirus (HPV). We don't have a characterized HPV nosode in our materia medica (Samuel Swan did prepare "Verruca menstruo," "menstrual blood from a woman who had warts," but this has had neither proving nor establishment of clinical symptomatology). Hahnemann reported that "the whole sycosis [is] cured most surely and most thoroughly through the internal use of Thuja" ((Hahnemann, Chronic Diseases, p.84)) - suggesting that the pathogenesis of Thuja, in the absence of a characterized nosode, might lend a portrait of Sycosis. Boenninghausen began to assemble just this, in his essays Anamnesis of Sycosis and Special Symptoms of Thuja, both included in the collection of Boenninghausen's Lesser Writings. "
has anybody seen in practice the problems arising after suppression of gonorrhea? Dr Shardar wrote in one of his articles that there is a difference between the common (Neisserian) gonorrhea and the sycotic gonorrhea as it was called by Hahnemann. I have seen quite a lot of cases of suppressed gonorrhea in practice, but i am not sure if what i have seen is really a complication after suppressed gonorrhea or another problem which appeared independently? it would be interesting to hear the opinion of Dr Shardar himself.
Regards, Michael
________________________________
--
Imagine Peace
http://similibus.org/chronicmiasms7
excerpt:
"These excrescences ... usually, but not always, attended with a sort of gonorrhoea* from the urethra ...
*The miasm of the other common gonorrhoeas seems not to penetrate the whole organism, but only to locally stimulate the urinary organs. (Hahenmann, Chronic Diseases, p.83)
Sycosis is not related to the disease we today call Gonorrhea; and Medorrhinum - the nosode of Gonorrhea, introduced by Swan in 1842 - is not the nosode of Sycosis.
This is essential, as many historical and contemporary efforts to describe Sycosis, have been based on the pathogenesis of Medorrhinum, on the mistaken assumption that this were the nosode of the primary disease. This has resulted in unfortunate severe distortions in many existing descriptions of the Sycotic miasm.
The term "gonorrhea" is derived from the Greek gones (sex organ) + rrhoia (discharge). In Hahnemann's day, this term referred merely to any discharge from the genitals, and was not used to describe a specific disease in the nosological sense.
The diplococcus bacterium Neisseria gonorrhoeae was first described in 1876, by German physician Albert Neisser , from urethral and conjunctival discharges - 48 years after the publication of Hahnemann's Chronic Diseases, and 33 years after Hahnemann's death.
The term "Gonorrhea" at this time, was formally adopted as the specific nosological term for this sexually transmited disease.
Chlamydia trachomatis - responsible for mucupurulent urethritides (gonorrheas) readily clinically confusable with those of Gonorrhea - was first described in 1935, but was only associated with "non-specific urethritis" in the late 1970's.
These - Neisseria gonorrhea and Chlamydia trachomatis - were the "[acute] miasms [i.e., infectious diseases] of the other common gonorrhoeas [which] seem not to penetrate the whole organism, but only to locally stimulate the urinary organs".
Sycosis is "usually, but not always, attended with a sort of [gones + rrhoia]" - but the principal characteristic of the primary disease is the characteristic excresences, "more rarely ... dry and like warts, more frequently soft, spongy, emitting a specifically fetid fluid (sweetish and almost like herring-brine), bleeding easily, and in the form of a coxcomb or a cauliflower. These, with males, sprout forth on the glans and on, or below, the prepuce, but with women, on the parts surrounding the pudenda; and the pudenda themselves, which are then swollen, are covered often by a great number of them." ((Hahnemann, Chronic Diseases, p.83))
From this description, we can clearly recognize Sycosis to be the disease we today call Condyloma accuminata or venereal wart disease, attributed to human papillomavirus (HPV). We don't have a characterized HPV nosode in our materia medica (Samuel Swan did prepare "Verruca menstruo," "menstrual blood from a woman who had warts," but this has had neither proving nor establishment of clinical symptomatology). Hahnemann reported that "the whole sycosis [is] cured most surely and most thoroughly through the internal use of Thuja" ((Hahnemann, Chronic Diseases, p.84)) - suggesting that the pathogenesis of Thuja, in the absence of a characterized nosode, might lend a portrait of Sycosis. Boenninghausen began to assemble just this, in his essays Anamnesis of Sycosis and Special Symptoms of Thuja, both included in the collection of Boenninghausen's Lesser Writings. "
has anybody seen in practice the problems arising after suppression of gonorrhea? Dr Shardar wrote in one of his articles that there is a difference between the common (Neisserian) gonorrhea and the sycotic gonorrhea as it was called by Hahnemann. I have seen quite a lot of cases of suppressed gonorrhea in practice, but i am not sure if what i have seen is really a complication after suppressed gonorrhea or another problem which appeared independently? it would be interesting to hear the opinion of Dr Shardar himself.
Regards, Michael
________________________________
--
Imagine Peace
Re: suppression of gonorrhea
thank you for the information, Lynn. I thought that somebody met such things in practice. i see these things regularly and i am trying to sort them out for myself.
Michael
--- On Mon, 16/1/12, Lynn Cremona wrote:
has anybody seen in practice the problems arising after suppression of gonorrhea? Dr Shardar wrote in one of his articles that there is a difference between the common (Neisserian) gonorrhea and the sycotic gonorrhea as it was called by Hahnemann. I have seen quite a lot of cases of suppressed gonorrhea in practice, but i am not sure if what i have seen is really a complication after suppressed gonorrhea or another problem which appeared independently? it would be interesting to hear the opinion of Dr Shardar himself.
Regards, Michael
________________________________
Michael
--- On Mon, 16/1/12, Lynn Cremona wrote:
has anybody seen in practice the problems arising after suppression of gonorrhea? Dr Shardar wrote in one of his articles that there is a difference between the common (Neisserian) gonorrhea and the sycotic gonorrhea as it was called by Hahnemann. I have seen quite a lot of cases of suppressed gonorrhea in practice, but i am not sure if what i have seen is really a complication after suppressed gonorrhea or another problem which appeared independently? it would be interesting to hear the opinion of Dr Shardar himself.
Regards, Michael
________________________________
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
suppression of gonorrhea
I also remember reading--but can't remember who the writer was--that what has/had been taken as consequences of suppressed gonorrhea was in fact simply "the disease following its natural course." For whatever that might or might not be worth... Anyone remember the reference?
I suppose the only difference it would make is if one became sidetracked in trying to "antidote" a prior remedy, rather than simply continue treating the developing picture.
Shannon
thank you for the information, Lynn. I thought that somebody met such things in practice. i see these things regularly and i am trying to sort them out for myself.
Michael
--- On Mon, 16/1/12, Lynn Cremona > wrote:
has anybody seen in practice the problems arising after suppression of gonorrhea? Dr Shardar wrote in one of his articles that there is a difference between the common (Neisserian) gonorrhea and the sycotic gonorrhea as it was called by Hahnemann. I have seen quite a lot of cases of suppressed gonorrhea in practice, but i am not sure if what i have seen is really a complication after suppressed gonorrhea or another problem which appeared independently? it would be interesting to hear the opinion of Dr Shardar himself.
Regards, Michael
________________________________
I suppose the only difference it would make is if one became sidetracked in trying to "antidote" a prior remedy, rather than simply continue treating the developing picture.
Shannon
thank you for the information, Lynn. I thought that somebody met such things in practice. i see these things regularly and i am trying to sort them out for myself.
Michael
--- On Mon, 16/1/12, Lynn Cremona > wrote:
has anybody seen in practice the problems arising after suppression of gonorrhea? Dr Shardar wrote in one of his articles that there is a difference between the common (Neisserian) gonorrhea and the sycotic gonorrhea as it was called by Hahnemann. I have seen quite a lot of cases of suppressed gonorrhea in practice, but i am not sure if what i have seen is really a complication after suppressed gonorrhea or another problem which appeared independently? it would be interesting to hear the opinion of Dr Shardar himself.
Regards, Michael
________________________________
Re: suppression of gonorrhea
i mean cases when after suppressing gonorrhea with antibiotics soon after or several years later very unplesant symptoms or problems appear which cannot be removed by any means of official medicine. for example, pain and burning in inguinal region, lower abdomen, male genitals. many times people who had gonorrhea suppressed with antibiotics later have rheumatic problems, prostate problems, impotency. maybe it is only a coincidence. there is a rubric in the repertory "after suppressed gonorrhea". i am trying to understand if it is only a coincidence or there are ties between suppression of gonorrhea and later problems which appear out of nothing and cannot be explained or treated by medicine.
Michael
--- On Mon, 16/1/12, Shannon Nelson wrote:
Michael
--- On Mon, 16/1/12, Shannon Nelson wrote:
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: suppression of gonorrhea
Some time ago I read--but can't remember who the writer was--that a common mistake is or was or had been, to view as effects of suppression of gonorrhea, what in fact was simply part of the progression of the disease. I don't know whether this applies to what you are seeing--or whether it really matters, just thought i would mention. But--are these things that would tend to happen (along with other effects) in *untreated* gonorrhea, or are they peculiar to antibiotic-treated cases?
Shannon
i mean cases when after suppressing gonorrhea with antibiotics soon after or several years later very unplesant symptoms or problems appear which cannot be removed by any means of official medicine. for example, pain and burning in inguinal region, lower abdomen, male genitals. many times people who had gonorrhea suppressed with antibiotics later have rheumatic problems, prostate problems, impotency. maybe it is only a coincidence. there is a rubric in the repertory "after suppressed gonorrhea". i am trying to understand if it is only a coincidence or there are ties between suppression of gonorrhea and later problems which appear out of nothing and cannot be explained or treated by medicine.
Michael
--- On Mon, 16/1/12, Shannon Nelson > wrote:
Shannon
i mean cases when after suppressing gonorrhea with antibiotics soon after or several years later very unplesant symptoms or problems appear which cannot be removed by any means of official medicine. for example, pain and burning in inguinal region, lower abdomen, male genitals. many times people who had gonorrhea suppressed with antibiotics later have rheumatic problems, prostate problems, impotency. maybe it is only a coincidence. there is a rubric in the repertory "after suppressed gonorrhea". i am trying to understand if it is only a coincidence or there are ties between suppression of gonorrhea and later problems which appear out of nothing and cannot be explained or treated by medicine.
Michael
--- On Mon, 16/1/12, Shannon Nelson > wrote:
Re: suppression of gonorrhea
no idea. i only speak from my experience.
Michael
--- On Mon, 16/1/12, Shannon Nelson wrote:
i mean cases when after suppressing gonorrhea with antibiotics soon after or several years later very unplesant symptoms or problems appear which cannot be removed by any means of official medicine. for example, pain and burning in inguinal region, lower abdomen, male genitals. many times people who had gonorrhea suppressed with antibiotics later have rheumatic problems, prostate problems, impotency. maybe it is only a coincidence. there is a rubric in the repertory "after suppressed gonorrhea". i am trying to understand if it is only a coincidence or there are ties between suppression of gonorrhea and later problems which appear out of nothing and cannot be explained or treated by medicine.
Michael
--- On Mon, 16/1/12, Shannon Nelson wrote:
Michael
--- On Mon, 16/1/12, Shannon Nelson wrote:
i mean cases when after suppressing gonorrhea with antibiotics soon after or several years later very unplesant symptoms or problems appear which cannot be removed by any means of official medicine. for example, pain and burning in inguinal region, lower abdomen, male genitals. many times people who had gonorrhea suppressed with antibiotics later have rheumatic problems, prostate problems, impotency. maybe it is only a coincidence. there is a rubric in the repertory "after suppressed gonorrhea". i am trying to understand if it is only a coincidence or there are ties between suppression of gonorrhea and later problems which appear out of nothing and cannot be explained or treated by medicine.
Michael
--- On Mon, 16/1/12, Shannon Nelson wrote:
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: suppression of gonorrhea
But actually it IS important to know what the natural progress is, of a disease you are treating. Otherwise you can't know to what degree you are succeeding, or not. All of this: "pain and burning in inguinal region, lower abdomen, male genitls... rheumatic problems, prostate problems, impotency..." all sounds like it *could* simply be part of the disease.
If you're being told that these symptoms are unexplained by mainstream medicine, then *maybe* that means they are not natural to the untreated disease. *Or* it might simply mean that they cannot explain why effects continue, once the supposed cause of the disease (the bacteria) have been (presumably) eliminated. Really you *do* need to know that, in order to correctly direct your efforts.
Well, at least that's what I was taught... Or you can just assume the presenting picture will take you where you need to know, but if that isn't working... Maybe small remedies, or simply different ones? Maybe obstacle, or toxic effects of the medicine (or from disturbed gut flora from the ABs)?
I would love to hear others' views on that?
Shannon
no idea. i only speak from my experience.
Michael
--- On Mon, 16/1/12, Shannon Nelson > wrote:
i mean cases when after suppressing gonorrhea with antibiotics soon after or several years later very unplesant symptoms or problems appear which cannot be removed by any means of official medicine. for example, pain and burning in inguinal region, lower abdomen, male genitals. many times people who had gonorrhea suppressed with antibiotics later have rheumatic problems, prostate problems, impotency. maybe it is only a coincidence. there is a rubric in the repertory "after suppressed gonorrhea". i am trying to understand if it is only a coincidence or there are ties between suppression of gonorrhea and later problems which appear out of nothing and cannot be explained or treated by medicine.
Michael
--- On Mon, 16/1/12, Shannon Nelson wrote:
If you're being told that these symptoms are unexplained by mainstream medicine, then *maybe* that means they are not natural to the untreated disease. *Or* it might simply mean that they cannot explain why effects continue, once the supposed cause of the disease (the bacteria) have been (presumably) eliminated. Really you *do* need to know that, in order to correctly direct your efforts.
Well, at least that's what I was taught... Or you can just assume the presenting picture will take you where you need to know, but if that isn't working... Maybe small remedies, or simply different ones? Maybe obstacle, or toxic effects of the medicine (or from disturbed gut flora from the ABs)?
I would love to hear others' views on that?
Shannon
no idea. i only speak from my experience.
Michael
--- On Mon, 16/1/12, Shannon Nelson > wrote:
i mean cases when after suppressing gonorrhea with antibiotics soon after or several years later very unplesant symptoms or problems appear which cannot be removed by any means of official medicine. for example, pain and burning in inguinal region, lower abdomen, male genitals. many times people who had gonorrhea suppressed with antibiotics later have rheumatic problems, prostate problems, impotency. maybe it is only a coincidence. there is a rubric in the repertory "after suppressed gonorrhea". i am trying to understand if it is only a coincidence or there are ties between suppression of gonorrhea and later problems which appear out of nothing and cannot be explained or treated by medicine.
Michael
--- On Mon, 16/1/12, Shannon Nelson wrote:
-
Nader Moradi
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Re: suppression of gonorrhea
With respect to Dr Taylor, Today we know that Gonorrhea is not merely local disease, it can penetrate the organism and can be both acute and chronic miasm. Dr Shahrdar has analyzed it very beautifully and its animiasmatic are MERC, SULPH, CALC, Lyc, Sabin, Puls, Sep and Kali-s..
Here his analysis:
Common Gonorrhea
Dr Ardavan Shahrdar - 2007
Gonorrhea was a common term in old medical terminology. The term referred to the catarrhal, suppurative affection of venereal mucous membranes. 'Gono-' refers to genital and '-rrhea' means flow. As mentioned in my previous article 'Syphilis - A Fresh Look', it was believed that all venereal diseases are the result of infection of a single pathogen. The reason for the different manifestations of venereal diseases was believed to be the location affected by the pathogen (termed virus in old literature).
'Parts of the body destitute of epidermis designed for the secretion of natural fluids, when the virus is brought in contact with them, become subject, as Hunter demonstrated, to abnormal fluxes of mucus and pus without loss of substance this phenomenon is called gonorrhea. On the other hand when applied to, or rather rubbed into, surfaces of the body provided with epidermis, it excites specific ulcers, which on account of their corroding character are termed chancres (ulcera cancrosa). In agglomerated glands it gives rise to buboes.' (Hahnemann's Instruction for Surgeons respecting Venereal Diseases - 8th paragraph).
Hahnemann, later, following extraction of the picture of Sycosis from what was believed to be a kind of Syphilis, mentioned 2 types of gonorrhea. One which is associated in some cases with Sycosis (Figwart's disease) and the other 'Common gonorrheas' which are not penetrating miasms. In my article 'Sycosis & Gonorrhea' I have mentioned that the gonorrhea which Hahnemann speaks of in Sycosis is actually a herpetic urethritis. Association of painful tubercles on penis is a confirmatory evidence.
'Usually in gonorrhoa of this kind, the discharge is from the beginning thickish, like pus micturition is less difficult, but the body of the penis swollen somewhat hard the penis is also in some cases covered on the back with glandular tubercles, and very painful to the touch.' (First footnote in Sycosis section of Hahnemann's Chronic Diseases).
The benign gonorrhea or as was termed, common gonorrhea, was not considered as a penetrating miasm. In the second footnote of Sycosis section, Hahnemann wrote:
'The miasm of the other common gonorrheas seems not to penetrate the whole organism, but only to locally stimulate the urinary organs. They yield either to a dose of one drop of fresh parsley-juice, when this is indicated by a frequent urgency to urinate, or a small dose of cannabis, of cantharides, or of the copaiva balm, according to their different constitution and the other ailments attending it. These should, however, be always used in the higher and dynamizations (potencies), unless a psora, slumbering in the body of the patient, has been developed by means of a strongly affecting, irritating or weakening treatment by Allopathic physicians. In such a case frequently secondary gonorrheas remain, which can only be cured by an anti-psoric treatment.'
The deep penetrating nature of herpetic gonorrhea resulting from HSV-2 infection is confirmed by recent findings. HSV-2 is a DNA virus capable of penetrating human genetic system and deranging its function. Recent researches show its association with malignant conditions and degenerative diseases. Invasive cervical cancer is a good example which is the result of co-infections of HPV and HSV-2 (Hahnemann's Sycosis). It is worth noting that the only viral infection which can commonly cause urethritis is HSV-2.
But, what is the common gonorrhea which Hahnemann talks about? Is it really a simple local irritation not able to penetrate to the system? What is the miasmatic picture of common gonorrhea?
Non-herpetic causes of urethritis are Neisseria gonorrhea, Chlamydia trachomatis, Ureaplasma urealyticum, Trichomonas vaginalis and Mycoplasma genitalium. The severe dysuria associated with what Hahnemann calls common gonorrhea is a confirmatory evidence that common gonorrhea is most probably Neisseria gonorrhea (GU - Gonococcal Urethritis).
'A combination of dysuria and discharge is seen in 71% of patients with gonococcal urethritis but is only 38% of patients with NGU (Nongonococcal Urethritis). Therefor, the combination of discharge and dysuria is associated with gonorrhea, whereas the appearance of one without the other is more frequently seen with NGU.' (Mandell's Principle and Practice of Infectious Diseases - 2005 - page 1350)
In men, symptomatic Gonococcal urethritis burning during urination and a serous discharge. A few days later, the discharge usually becomes profuse, purulent, and sometimes blood-tinged. Epididymitis is one of the important complications of Gonococcal urethritis (Neisseria gonorrhea).
In women, the primary manifestation is cervicitis with purulent discharge associated with urethritis and in some cases proctitis. Vaginitis is not common except in pre-puberty age and post-menopausal women when the vaginal wall is thin. Women may complain of dyspareunia (painful coition), lower abdominal pain, metrorrhagia and adnezal tenderness. Ovaritis, Salpingitis and Endometritis are complications of Neisseria gonorrhea in women.
Pharyngitis and purulent conjunctivitis and proctitis can also be the results of their local primary infection.
This is not the end of the story. Gonococci responsible for gonorrhea can spread in blood in 0.5 to 3% of patients with untreated gonococcal mucosal infection resulting in Disseminated Gonococcal Infection (DGI). The common manifestation of this generalized infection is arthritis dermatitis syndrome. Polyarthralgia usually includes knees, elbows and distal joints and not the axial skeleton. Arthritis may become suppurative. The skin manifestation is appearance of hemorrhagic papules and pustules with purpuric centers in a centrifugal distribution. DGI is the result of direct invasion of Gonococci to the joints and skin and should be deferentiated with Reiter's syndrome which is a reactive arthritis. It means that DGI is a part of miasmatic manifestation of Neisserian gonorrhea. DGI may also lead to endocarditis and rarely meningitis.
Here you see that this 'common gonorrhea' is not a mere local infection and 'can' penetrate the whole organism. Of course this is a bacterial infection and not able to penetrate the human genome like HSV-2.
If you study old homeopathy literature you see the word 'gleet' as a complication of common gonorrhea. Nowadays gleet is sometimes used as a synonym for gonorrheal discharge but the meaning in old medical terminology was different. Gleet was the name given to the chronic discharge following treatment of gonorrhea. It was considered as a part of the original miasm. Do we now witness 'gleet' in gonorrheal patients? Yes! It is now called Post-Gonococcal Urethritis (PGU). But now we know that it is not related to the original infection of Neisseria Gonorrhea. The organisms responsible for PGU are Chlamydia trachomatis and Ureaplasma urealyticum. PGU (the old Gleet) is the result of co-infection of these agents with Neisseria gonorrhea. So we should be careful not to include it in our studies of Genus Epidemicus as the miasmatic picture of Neisseria Gonorrhea. Description of gleet following gonorrhea is another confirmatory evidence that Hahnemann was referring to Neisseria gonorrhea (GU) and not NGU.
Another complication of gonorrhea which is mentioned in old books is the stricture of urethra following gonorrhea. Now we know that this is not a direct complication of gonorrhea and it was the result of invasive treatments of gonorrheal patients with Silver nitrate and Potassium permanganate. Chordee or penile deviation which is also mentioned in old medical books and also homeopathic literature is no more known as complication of gonorrhea.
Now, if you analyze the signs and symptoms related to Neisseria gonorrhea, and choose its antimiasmatic remedies, you may be surprised by the results. The remedies in the order of importance are MERC, SULPH, CALC, Lyc, Sabin, Puls, Sep and Kali-s. When I mention 'antimiasmatics in infections, I am referring to the remedies than can cover the whole dynamic nature of the miasm and not suitable just for a localized acute-like condition. If you know the miasmatic picture of HSV-2 and HPV, you see here that GU's dynamism is something between these two. Another point is that Medorrhinum, the related nosode, seems not to be a good simillimum for the entire dynamism.
So...using old Hahnemannian terminology, 'common gonorrhea' is not the just a local stimulation of urinary organs and also is not related to Sycosis. We need to keep the wonderful scientific concept of Hahnemannian view but the epidemic data needs to be updated. This is a kind of alchemy. Understanding the concept and data separately, updating the data and integrate them again. We should learn to act like Hahnemann and not imitate everything he did the way he himself behaved.
Kind Regards,
Nader
has anybody seen in practice the problems arising after suppression of gonorrhea? Dr Shardar wrote in one of his articles that there is a difference between the common (Neisserian) gonorrhea and the sycotic gonorrhea as it was called by Hahnemann. I have seen quite a lot of cases of suppressed gonorrhea in practice, but i am not sure if what i have seen is really a complication after suppressed gonorrhea or another problem which appeared independently? it would be interesting to hear the opinion of Dr Shardar himself.
Regards, Michael
________________________________
Here his analysis:
Common Gonorrhea
Dr Ardavan Shahrdar - 2007
Gonorrhea was a common term in old medical terminology. The term referred to the catarrhal, suppurative affection of venereal mucous membranes. 'Gono-' refers to genital and '-rrhea' means flow. As mentioned in my previous article 'Syphilis - A Fresh Look', it was believed that all venereal diseases are the result of infection of a single pathogen. The reason for the different manifestations of venereal diseases was believed to be the location affected by the pathogen (termed virus in old literature).
'Parts of the body destitute of epidermis designed for the secretion of natural fluids, when the virus is brought in contact with them, become subject, as Hunter demonstrated, to abnormal fluxes of mucus and pus without loss of substance this phenomenon is called gonorrhea. On the other hand when applied to, or rather rubbed into, surfaces of the body provided with epidermis, it excites specific ulcers, which on account of their corroding character are termed chancres (ulcera cancrosa). In agglomerated glands it gives rise to buboes.' (Hahnemann's Instruction for Surgeons respecting Venereal Diseases - 8th paragraph).
Hahnemann, later, following extraction of the picture of Sycosis from what was believed to be a kind of Syphilis, mentioned 2 types of gonorrhea. One which is associated in some cases with Sycosis (Figwart's disease) and the other 'Common gonorrheas' which are not penetrating miasms. In my article 'Sycosis & Gonorrhea' I have mentioned that the gonorrhea which Hahnemann speaks of in Sycosis is actually a herpetic urethritis. Association of painful tubercles on penis is a confirmatory evidence.
'Usually in gonorrhoa of this kind, the discharge is from the beginning thickish, like pus micturition is less difficult, but the body of the penis swollen somewhat hard the penis is also in some cases covered on the back with glandular tubercles, and very painful to the touch.' (First footnote in Sycosis section of Hahnemann's Chronic Diseases).
The benign gonorrhea or as was termed, common gonorrhea, was not considered as a penetrating miasm. In the second footnote of Sycosis section, Hahnemann wrote:
'The miasm of the other common gonorrheas seems not to penetrate the whole organism, but only to locally stimulate the urinary organs. They yield either to a dose of one drop of fresh parsley-juice, when this is indicated by a frequent urgency to urinate, or a small dose of cannabis, of cantharides, or of the copaiva balm, according to their different constitution and the other ailments attending it. These should, however, be always used in the higher and dynamizations (potencies), unless a psora, slumbering in the body of the patient, has been developed by means of a strongly affecting, irritating or weakening treatment by Allopathic physicians. In such a case frequently secondary gonorrheas remain, which can only be cured by an anti-psoric treatment.'
The deep penetrating nature of herpetic gonorrhea resulting from HSV-2 infection is confirmed by recent findings. HSV-2 is a DNA virus capable of penetrating human genetic system and deranging its function. Recent researches show its association with malignant conditions and degenerative diseases. Invasive cervical cancer is a good example which is the result of co-infections of HPV and HSV-2 (Hahnemann's Sycosis). It is worth noting that the only viral infection which can commonly cause urethritis is HSV-2.
But, what is the common gonorrhea which Hahnemann talks about? Is it really a simple local irritation not able to penetrate to the system? What is the miasmatic picture of common gonorrhea?
Non-herpetic causes of urethritis are Neisseria gonorrhea, Chlamydia trachomatis, Ureaplasma urealyticum, Trichomonas vaginalis and Mycoplasma genitalium. The severe dysuria associated with what Hahnemann calls common gonorrhea is a confirmatory evidence that common gonorrhea is most probably Neisseria gonorrhea (GU - Gonococcal Urethritis).
'A combination of dysuria and discharge is seen in 71% of patients with gonococcal urethritis but is only 38% of patients with NGU (Nongonococcal Urethritis). Therefor, the combination of discharge and dysuria is associated with gonorrhea, whereas the appearance of one without the other is more frequently seen with NGU.' (Mandell's Principle and Practice of Infectious Diseases - 2005 - page 1350)
In men, symptomatic Gonococcal urethritis burning during urination and a serous discharge. A few days later, the discharge usually becomes profuse, purulent, and sometimes blood-tinged. Epididymitis is one of the important complications of Gonococcal urethritis (Neisseria gonorrhea).
In women, the primary manifestation is cervicitis with purulent discharge associated with urethritis and in some cases proctitis. Vaginitis is not common except in pre-puberty age and post-menopausal women when the vaginal wall is thin. Women may complain of dyspareunia (painful coition), lower abdominal pain, metrorrhagia and adnezal tenderness. Ovaritis, Salpingitis and Endometritis are complications of Neisseria gonorrhea in women.
Pharyngitis and purulent conjunctivitis and proctitis can also be the results of their local primary infection.
This is not the end of the story. Gonococci responsible for gonorrhea can spread in blood in 0.5 to 3% of patients with untreated gonococcal mucosal infection resulting in Disseminated Gonococcal Infection (DGI). The common manifestation of this generalized infection is arthritis dermatitis syndrome. Polyarthralgia usually includes knees, elbows and distal joints and not the axial skeleton. Arthritis may become suppurative. The skin manifestation is appearance of hemorrhagic papules and pustules with purpuric centers in a centrifugal distribution. DGI is the result of direct invasion of Gonococci to the joints and skin and should be deferentiated with Reiter's syndrome which is a reactive arthritis. It means that DGI is a part of miasmatic manifestation of Neisserian gonorrhea. DGI may also lead to endocarditis and rarely meningitis.
Here you see that this 'common gonorrhea' is not a mere local infection and 'can' penetrate the whole organism. Of course this is a bacterial infection and not able to penetrate the human genome like HSV-2.
If you study old homeopathy literature you see the word 'gleet' as a complication of common gonorrhea. Nowadays gleet is sometimes used as a synonym for gonorrheal discharge but the meaning in old medical terminology was different. Gleet was the name given to the chronic discharge following treatment of gonorrhea. It was considered as a part of the original miasm. Do we now witness 'gleet' in gonorrheal patients? Yes! It is now called Post-Gonococcal Urethritis (PGU). But now we know that it is not related to the original infection of Neisseria Gonorrhea. The organisms responsible for PGU are Chlamydia trachomatis and Ureaplasma urealyticum. PGU (the old Gleet) is the result of co-infection of these agents with Neisseria gonorrhea. So we should be careful not to include it in our studies of Genus Epidemicus as the miasmatic picture of Neisseria Gonorrhea. Description of gleet following gonorrhea is another confirmatory evidence that Hahnemann was referring to Neisseria gonorrhea (GU) and not NGU.
Another complication of gonorrhea which is mentioned in old books is the stricture of urethra following gonorrhea. Now we know that this is not a direct complication of gonorrhea and it was the result of invasive treatments of gonorrheal patients with Silver nitrate and Potassium permanganate. Chordee or penile deviation which is also mentioned in old medical books and also homeopathic literature is no more known as complication of gonorrhea.
Now, if you analyze the signs and symptoms related to Neisseria gonorrhea, and choose its antimiasmatic remedies, you may be surprised by the results. The remedies in the order of importance are MERC, SULPH, CALC, Lyc, Sabin, Puls, Sep and Kali-s. When I mention 'antimiasmatics in infections, I am referring to the remedies than can cover the whole dynamic nature of the miasm and not suitable just for a localized acute-like condition. If you know the miasmatic picture of HSV-2 and HPV, you see here that GU's dynamism is something between these two. Another point is that Medorrhinum, the related nosode, seems not to be a good simillimum for the entire dynamism.
So...using old Hahnemannian terminology, 'common gonorrhea' is not the just a local stimulation of urinary organs and also is not related to Sycosis. We need to keep the wonderful scientific concept of Hahnemannian view but the epidemic data needs to be updated. This is a kind of alchemy. Understanding the concept and data separately, updating the data and integrate them again. We should learn to act like Hahnemann and not imitate everything he did the way he himself behaved.
Kind Regards,
Nader
has anybody seen in practice the problems arising after suppression of gonorrhea? Dr Shardar wrote in one of his articles that there is a difference between the common (Neisserian) gonorrhea and the sycotic gonorrhea as it was called by Hahnemann. I have seen quite a lot of cases of suppressed gonorrhea in practice, but i am not sure if what i have seen is really a complication after suppressed gonorrhea or another problem which appeared independently? it would be interesting to hear the opinion of Dr Shardar himself.
Regards, Michael
________________________________
Re: suppression of gonorrhea
Dear Nader,
Thank you for the good info. it seems to me that after the usual treatment with antibiotics the complications of gonorrhea still appear, not only in men, but they also transfer something to their wives. what do they transfer actually? miasm, infection, predisposition?
Regards, Michael
--- On Tue, 17/1/12, Nader Moradi wrote:
Thank you for the good info. it seems to me that after the usual treatment with antibiotics the complications of gonorrhea still appear, not only in men, but they also transfer something to their wives. what do they transfer actually? miasm, infection, predisposition?
Regards, Michael
--- On Tue, 17/1/12, Nader Moradi wrote: