Minutus

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Piet Guijt wrote:

***Hi Piet,
thasnk for your reply. Again I apologise if I sound confrontational
in anyway. It is merely being direct.
My answer here may be a little off the cuff, but your thoughts are
interesting and I intend to make furthur analysis of them, So my
answers may be incomplete below.

****Please, lets be clear about this. What I"m saying is NOT MY
opinion.
They are WORKING DERIVATIONS of well established and working groups
of homeopaths. I am merely expressing the same in a way which I hope
is more understandable, as they have worked for me in my practice and
case management.

but for
remedies and
****Maybe we need to be a little more clear on what Hahnemann did
with Syphilis and Sycosis.
BOth diseases were considered (in his day) to be similar clinical
conditions and the same infective process.
BUt Hahnemann noticed that the expression was completely different in
the "entire being".
Sycosis was the overgrowth with the yellow/green discharge of
gonorrhea.
Syphilis was the ulceration initially which suppressed resulted in
internal disease process/destruction of syphilis.

Psora was all conditions that did not ahve this manfestation. This he
grouped into latent Psora, primary psora and secondary psora.
It would be strange to assume that Sycosis would also not be latent
sycosis, proimary sycosis 9which he treated wtih Thuja) and secondary
sycosis.
Similarly Syphilis would be latent Syphilis, primary syphilis and
Secondary syphilis.
Today is a day of multiple suppression and complex diseases.
represent

****The Genus Epodemicus remedies may be ANY remedy that fits the
acute epidemic picture. The epidemic is acute miasm ie Explosions of
latent psora - according to Hahenamnn.
I don't know what you're saying here. This does not make sense to me.
Also almost every remedy is a mixed- miasmatic remedy.

the later

****When I say you deviate, I mean in terms of management application
that works. The original concept has some similarity to what you are
saying (my August article will point that out). But what is the use
of a concept that cannot be applied clinically in a majority of
situations for a majority of homeopaths?
to
choie
BUT
specific)
AND one
synergetic

****Unfortunately, Piet, this is not completely true given the
complex diseases we are faced with today. I'd say just 30% of people
may be in this category. IN that case, yes zeroing on the SINGLE
similimum that would help take the person to complete cure and where
furthur microunderstnading of "central disturbance" may be
worthwhile. FOr the rest, its a waste of time. This is only my
present observation - but I think that is the hard truth clinically.

exists
this makes

***As explained above, it does not make things more clear. A
miasmatic expression at a particular point of time is only ONE PHASE
in the whole process of cure.
So then are you suggesting that that one (similimum) remedy that
matches that one single central disturbance is going to cure the
partinet completely? IF the central disturbance has been corected,
then the person should be completely healthy (miasmatically) on that
single remedy. IN your own practice, how often has this happened?

Does this cenral disturbnace get CURED with this remedy or does it
mearly shift around?
it is an

***THis, for me, is a mis-statment. But maybe there is something I"m
not understanding about what you're saying here.
***I ahven't read this book. I don't see its relationship to the
genus epidmeicus. THough I had a conversation with Feras which will
come out in my next article that discusses the appraoch of the
Iranian homeopaths to Miasm.

prescribing,

***What you're saying, is completely different to what Vijaykar is
saying (if you've understood him right). So really, I'm still asking
you for proof!

multimiasmatic
any given

***I'd say it is the case in 70% of people.
simultaneous
same
in the
of
another, but, as
organism,
appropriate to
to each
life".
because there
then we hope
of our
from what
****Now again I think this is not clear to me at all.
You say we're looking for one central disturbance which is a single
frequency of Psora (or another miasm) that indicates one specific
similimum. (at least that is what I think you're syaing).
Then you say that NO, there are multiple central disturbances that
express multiple frequrencies of milti-miasmatic states.
And then both these statement are the same thing?
only be
knowledge
possible

**** NOt at all, IT is exactly what HAhenamnn said about Miasmatic
expression.
Psora is not an expression of one singel infective organism. It is an
expression of a deranged vital force that has been affected by a
chronic miasma (infective organism) - which also means that not all
maisma are chronic. This affection of the vital force is so deep taht
it changes the whole being so that the expression of symtpoms cover a
wide range of expression and not simply teh expression of a single
infective organism.
In parallel, the miasm of Sycosis does not consist only of the
clinical disease expression of N. Gonorrhea (the casuative orgnaism
of gonorrhea) and nither does the Syphilitic maism consist only of
clinical disease expression of treponema PAllidum.

Thank you for taking the time to read my articles. I realise that
there are statements that I have made that need to be clearly spelt
out so taht their meaning is not ambigious.
I ahev already done the first edition of the 3 articles (July 05),
but I'm sure all my articles will go through a numebr of editions to
presnt the conepts in more claruty. I"m thakful to whomever
participates with me in this.
Dr. leela

help
no
to
is an

around
no
email
simply
http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/minutus
of
around
no
email
simply
http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/minutus

Dr. Leela wrote:
Dear Leela, all,

This discussion and my remarks were not about "the SINGLE similimum that
would help take the person to complete cure"
Such a remedy would be prescribed on the 'essence' running thought the
patients life and complete disease.
To think this is what the "central disturbance" is about is a big
misconception.
The "central disturbance" is focussing on the present.
It does not say it is an chronic, miasmatic, psychological or acute remedy,
only thing it defines, that there is one simillimum at the time, and that
will cure the present situation.
This is were my remark came from, someone said he prescribed the simillimum,
but it didn't work, so now it was time to try the miasmatic approach. This
shows the misconception what the simillimum and a miasmatic prescription is.
The Central disturbance represents the dynamic change caused by the present
disease, which is expressed by the patient as a whole. This represents the
simillimum and nothing else, and it will always work!

Like I said the The "central disturbance" is focussing on the present, so in
case we prescribe on the predominating miasm, we are doing the same thing,
we know the symptoms of the dominating miasm represent the current phase of
the disease.
The symptoms belonging to other miasms we exclude for out prescription,
because they are more on the background, so not reliable for the selection
of the simmilimum.
Does this mean we have to treat them later, with the second remedy we might
already see?(second simillimum !?) or in alternation prescribe it right
away?
No, only we when the dominating miasm has changed, we must change our
prescription, but we must retake the case first, because the whole situation
and central disturbance has changed.

Do you see what going on, the miasmatic approach is not about clearing the
case, to prepare it for the 'simillimum' The miasmatic approach is to
prescribe the simillimum.!
Such prescriptions are no superficial prescriptions but deep acting.

Now to take this one step further;
In the first example the symptoms of one miasm dominated the case.
But what happens when two miasm are equally strong? In this case there are
two simillimums?
Of course not, there can only be one.
In this case the dominating miasm falls exactly between the classification
areas of two main miasm, so is situated right between them. We still can
find one remedy for this situation that must cover both miasm. We might also
say that the classification of the main miasm doesn't help us here and that
all present predominating symptoms belong to a 'in between' miasm.

I hope this makes clear that with a the miasmatic approach we prescribe the
simillimum, and that there is no such thing as two Central disturbances?
Kind regards, Piet

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Piet Guijt wrote:
that
the
remedy,
and that

****HEllo Piet, Interesting extrapolations - but I'd lke to split
hairs here:
Would you explain where your expression "central disturbance" comes
form?
Considering the source of this concept, what would be the basis for
deciding on what the "central disturbance" is at any point of time?
What would a remedy chosen to match the central distrubance do with
the peripherall;y expressed miasm?
To extend this concept towards the possibility of changing
expressions of central disturbance as in changing expression of
miasmatic disturbance in the vital force - why does one need to use
the term "central disturbance" at all?
ON the same lines - what is the method you would use to detect
this "central disturbance"?
simillimum,
approach. This
prescription is.
present
represents the

***The miasmatic disturbance of the vital force respresents a
chronically progressing chronic disease. So there is no "present"
and "past" disease. It is the same process in evolution - eg: latent
psora to primary psora to secondary psora.
But, as Hahnemann noted, all the presenting symtpoms by the patient
as a whole cannot be considered in the picture when there is a multi-
miasmatic expression.
the only way to deal with this situation is to recongnize the
MIASMATIC symtpoms (not all symptoms) of the chief complaint and
prescribe the miasmatic similimum that they represent. this is a
miasmatic similimum, which may be different from the constitutional
similimum as we know it.
So in a way what the original poster was trying to express was this
concept and he was right to a certain extent in concept. The
miasmatic similimum (eg Sulphur or Thuja or MErc or Tuberculinum) is
a clearly defined and encountered clinical entity that has been found
to work alongside the constitutional similimum.

present, so in
thing,
phase of

****Exactly how the concept of "central disturbance" - which is a
central energy expression (at least from where I have heard that term
originate) coincides with the dominating miasm in a multimiasmatic
state - which is a peripheral expression - to find the simlimum is
still not clear to me. IT sounds nice as an abstract concept - but
does not hold at the clinical level or the peripheral level.
prescription,
selection
we might
right
our
situation
clearing the
to

*** As explained earlier - not always - maybe in less than 50% of
cases.
In this case there are

****UNfortunately Hahenmann disagrees with you. But maybe he is wrong?
If two miasms are equally strong - which is expressing complex
miasmatic disease at its worst, one still precribes for the
predominant miasm in the chief complaint (usually PSORA first) till
it diminishes and then prescribe for the next predominant miasm till
it diminishes and then prescribe for the recurred first predominant
miasm - in succession till both miasms are eradicated.
In complex disease, one has to eat humble pie and realise that one
single remedy covering both "equal" states cannot work to cure
because of the basic nature of the complexity.
IF this was a "central disturbance" issue (as you explained), I would
have thought - why shouldn't a single remedy work? - but in the
clincal situation, it simply does not.
classification
still can
might also
and that

***And what does this "in between" mean? Why should this even be an
issue at all if one is prescribing an indicated similimum?

prescribe the
disturbances?

****Piet, this has been an entertaining flight of thought. But
unfortunately (as I see it for now) trying to marry the concept of
central disturbance with (peripheral) miasmatic expression and
miasmatic management just don't fit in together, howmuch ever we may
try to do so.
But if you are able to prove with clinical cases that have
an "inbetween" miasmatic expression or "complex" miasmatic
expression, that dealing with the (temporary? Phase?) central
disturbance as a particlular miasmatic expression is a plausible
clinical concept that works, I"m all ears.
Leela

Dr Leela wrote;
Dear Leela,

I really don't have the time to answer all your questions.
But the key is you devide the vital force in pieces, for practical reasons
or lack of other tools; a central part and periphal part, but in reality the
are connected.
Let me ask you again: You know Dr Vijayakar and his work. Vijayakar also
treats complex chronic with one simillimum.
To explain this he uses, APH 9 to show the vital force to is a undividable
unity.
What I don't understand is that you wrote an article about his approach,
know him and his work and results, but still want or need me to prove and
explain the same or from another angle similar (Sehgal, Sankaran, Bentley)
concept?
Kind regards, Piet

Dear Piet, My humble request is to answer my questions as soon as you
ahve the time.

So are you saying now that the word "Central disturbance" is what
Hahenmann called "deranged Vital force"?

I do not divide the vital force into pieces. Hahenmann did by
reminding us to look at symptom expression to understnad the deranged
vital force and not assume any other theory of doing so.
So I refer specifically to complex or milti miasmatic expression of
symptoms, which has to be understood in pieces so as to avoid
confusion and to help with clinical management. The disease process
whether simple or complex, remains one continious process of
expression (of a deranged vital force) that can be viewd in segments
(phases) peripherily.

I think you would need to read my NEXT article to get a clearer idea
of what I'm saying.

YES I know Vijaykar personally. I also know that he does use a
siingle remdy when indicated to cure an "incurable" Disease. HE has
performed more miraculous cures with a single remedy than most people
have.
But there are cases when he used more than one remedy which
unfortunately he has not mentioned in his books. I think that may be
a definitely lacuna in his teaching or one of the incomplete
developemnts in his books. I clearly mentiond that many concepts were
not completely thought out or explained.

Do you know how mnay cases he has FAILED to find that single remedy?
Do you know how many cases required multiple remedies (for whatever
reason), though he is quite an accurate prescriber?
I also know of cases of each of the people you mention that did not
do well at all - single remedy or not!
When one reads someones experiences and concepts, these factors
ALWAYS have to be taken into account. ITs simplistic to assume
otherwise.

Your posts have set me thinking on how other homeoapths may percieve
my articles as well as miasms from their learning (obviously
different to mine) and expereinces. Do know, I am very appreciative
that you have posted your thoughts. The questions I ask are for
furthur clarity, and again, not a confrontation.

Again, Please read the JULY ISSUE article which will give you a
better idea of what I trying to convey to you in these off the cuff
posts -which I seem to atleast take time to answer, even though I
seem to be asking more questions! My opinions, on issues that have
not reached clearity (as yours) continue to evolve.
Very Kind regards,
Leela
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Piet Guijt wrote:
of
may
reasons
reality the
also
undividable
approach,
prove and
Bentley)

Dear Leela
Yes, not in general but the resulting present changed state, ie acc to APH 8
footnote: "....partly because he still holds thoroughly material notions
respecting disease, which he is still unable to regard as a state of being
of the organism wherein it is dynamically altered by the morbidly deranged
vital force, as an altered state of health, but he views the disease as a
something material......"

You see, al lot of people see the miasm also as something material, and this
is a trap, I'm happy you have a clear perception on this, that miasm are
certain constitutional reaction patterns as well.
When there is one main miasm predominating, you don't divide the vital force
in pieces, but in case there are two equally strong and prescribe two
different remedies, in fact you divide the vital force in piece, and the
remedies are partial simillimums.
You said it is impossible to capture the two miasm in one remedy, but tell
me how would it be possible to exist side by side equally strong, that is
the vital force fights the "two diseases" at the very same time, with the
same priority. How would this be possible since the vital force is a unit,
but at the very same time divided?
The so called two disease stem from the same active disturbance, only
expressed on different levels, which add there own characteristics and make
the look different.
But this exactly what this approach is about, treat the present disease
(phase)
This is where my remarks came from in the first place.
But again there is only one predominating disease state and this represents
the simillimum.
This state covers the centre and the periphery, but only the symptoms and
characteristics that are connected, not all individual symptoms and
characteristics, which will lead to the limited individual (psora) remedy).
He is honest about this, I know.
As always nothing is absolute, but it good to realize the nature and level
of our prescriptions.
So we know why the individual remedy does not act, and that this remedy
based on the individual symptoms is not the simillimum, because there is a
symptom similarity, but the constitutional base of the predominating disease
in connection with the perihery is different.
This is about thinking things over, when we don't know what we want to find,
we surely never will!
I always have been clear on this, but when explaining and concentrating on
some particular approach, people somehow think this is your only way.
I also appreciate your thought and your articles.
This indeed is not a personal confrontation, we should be open the share our
thoughts and try to understand what's going on.

Kind regards, Piet

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Piet Guijt wrote:
to APH 8
notions
of being
deranged
disease as a
and this
miasm are

***Hi Piet,
We have discovered that this trap has been inadvertantly caused by
those who have translated the ORganon wihtout being precise as to
Hahnemanns references. the German erms for the internal MIASM and the
external MIASMA are different. this difference is maintained in the
CD>
deranged
vital force
two
and the

***IT depends on hte basis for prescription., BUt Miasmatic blocks
are not the only things one encounters in practice. there are a lot
of other factors that do now allow a "centrally acting" consitutional
to work. AND the only way through is by "PAHSE" similimum, not relaly
partial similimums.
the PArtial word here gives a different connotation.
There is no division of the Vital force, the vital force continues to
respond as one entity, but the peripheral blocks are not easily
overcome excep by Phase similimums (: A/F abuse of drugs/narcotics)
or Specific intercurrent anti-miasmatics.
but tell
that is
with the
a unit,

***I don't think I said it was impossible to cure with one remedy. I
said that percieving the predominant state must be based on a
miasmatic classification of peripheral symptoms. the remedy indicated
for the predominant miasm may cure two miasms or it may not. NO one
except God can predict this - we have to watch the remedy respone and
the progress to know. As long as we have the principles clear in our
mind, we can have realistic expectations of what may or may not
happen.
only
and make
***What are these levels?
of
process
segments
disease
represents

***Piet, I think yo need to be clear about what you mean to say and
what some peole say when they say that they are treating the most
central distrubance with a remedy. Whether they all agree that there
exists a series of similimums or not. What exactly are thy intedning
to do when they treat the predominant state without a clear
understanding of miasmatic progrssion and improvement.

symptoms and
remedy).

***Unfortunately this is one more googly. I have no idea whetehr you
are sying what I'm saying becasue you claim, when i say this that I"m
dividing the vital force!
idea
has
people
be
were
and level
remedy

***not necessarily, A good simililimum will not act for various
reasons that are called "blocks" that need to be overcome by being
more analytical about miasmatic state as well as other problems like
addictions, mechanical blocks, treatment/suppression, etc. Which is
exaclty what the initial poster may be facing. IT is simplistic to
assume that one is not on the similimum just because it does not seem
to work. So again, we have identified that there are various
varieties of 'similimums' and unless one has that concept of what one
has to treat in the symptom expression, one will keep looking for THE
SIMILIMUM to deal with THE CENTRAL DISTURBANCE!
Its the reason why I asked you all those questions in my earlier
post - how does one treat the central disturbance wihtout looking
carefully at what symptoms one need for the prescription? What does
one mena by "predominant phase"? HOw would one know which symptoms
you need for the prescription if one have no idea of misamtic
progression?
because there is a
predominating disease

***Googly again - any concrete example to help me understand what
you're tyring to convey?
remedy?
whatever
not
to find,

***Right, what I said in my previous para. Looking to prescribe for
a "central disturbance" and we miss the woods for the trees - or
should that be the other way around?
Leela

concentrating on
way.
percieve
appreciative
share our
cuff

Dear Dr. Leela
You talked about a "miasmatic block" which could be the reason why a good
simillimum can't act.

What do you think is the nature of this "block"?
Is this a dynamic pattern that must be treated, or are these just the
accumalated material toxins of the disease, that are suppressed and can't be
eliminated by the organism?
Is it in your oppinion possible that this block, causes the present
predominating reaction of the vital force to be different, changed, compared
to the situation before the suppression toke place, and that this could be
the reason why the "good simmilimum" did not act?
Kind regards, Piet

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Piet Guijt wrote:
Dear Piet,

a good

****I think each case has to be evaluated on its own merits. I have
seen blocks of various kinds. AND used different rationales for
dealing with each situation. It would be simplistic to assume it is
always a "miasmatic" block.
the
can't be

When I refer to "miasmatic" block, I"m refering to something dynamic.
It is a dynamic/energy block, imprinted on the vital force.

Toxins causing a block would have tow different reaons in my
experience:
One is the actualy contamination caused by a toxin
1. In mercury amalgum fillings in the teeth - this is a mechanical
block
2. In problems arising out of disease suppression or wrong treatments
which result in a sycotic type of accumulation of toxins, I"d say it
was a dynamic block.

compared
could be

****This is a googly. Piet, you seem to specialize in them!
The question to ask first is: what the block arises out of or from
which point of time. This is the first thing to identify by careful
hisotry taking.
Whether it is suppression or mechanical or addiction or deficiency or
regimen or behavioural etc is the next thing that needs to be decided
on.
Depending on what ones inferences are based on this, one can know
what is required to remove the block.

Some would simply require a change in diet and regimen or behaviour.
In these cases there is no change in the vital force.

When the block is mechanical, obviously the mechanical obstruction
needs to be removed before the effects can be treated.

When the block is deficiency, one may require some amount of
suppemantation for a while along with the similimum remedy.

When the block is addiction, one has to specifically treat the
emotional addiction - which is the real similimum, or else remove the
physical addictive agent and give the specific antidote remedy.

If its a suppression block, ie: Disease condition(s) not completely
treated in teh past as to its dynamic effects on the vital force,
along with the effects of the inappropirate treatment on teh vital
force, we generally believe this precipitates into a miasmatic block.
The treatment is obviously dynamic in teh sense that the remedy
antimiasmatic remedy ahs to impact teh vital force to remove the
block. If the "consitutional similimum" can do so, fine. IF it
cannot we need to use an intercurrent (specific) antimiasmatic,
becore the "consitutioanl similimum can conttinue to work.
The effect of such remedies are dynamic, they are on the vital force.
the effects are seen or recognized in the periphery.
Off the cuff again.
leela

From Aph 3
"- if, finally, he knows the OBSTACLES to recovery in each case and is aware
how to remove them, so that the restoration may be permanent, then he
understands how to treat judiciously and rationally, and he is a true
practitioner of the healing art."

Rgds
Soroush