At 11:55 PM 12/28/2005, you wrote:
Dear Soroush,
One may not fully recover from a physical or mental trauma, a acute
disorder, an acute miasma, etc. These are all NWS symptoms. A chronic
miasm, however, is lifelong right from the start. That is its nature.
First of Hahnemann had access to information collect from microscopic
studies. They were already using microscopes for a long time by 1828. He
made this clear when he used the term miasmatic "animalcule". This term,
animalcule. was already in use for the microorganisms observed by
microscope. Second of all, Hahnemann is the Founder of modern epidemiology
in that his published the first comprehensive information about infection,
constitutional conditioning, environmental conditioning, predisposition,
susceptibility, the moment of infection, the prodromal period, primary
stages, latent stages and secondary states. He also classified the
differences in their signs and symptoms as well as the affects of their
suppression and maltreatment. Not only this but He and the first generation
developed a materia medica that can provide plant, mineral and animal
remedies as well as nosodes that have the potential to prevent, abort and
treat acute, half-acute and chronic miasms. It is a shame that most modern
homoeopaths don't really understand this.
Although modern texts are extensive on cellular pathology they are very
weak signs and symptoms such as mental symptoms, general symptoms,
particular symptoms, sensations, modalities, times and concomitants, etc.
Hahnemann writings present an understanding of the processes of infection
that present a more integrated understanding of infectious states and their
potential for creating auto-immune diseases and immuno-deficiency disorders
than modern medicine. All of this information has been integrated into the
vitalist paradigm in such a manner that it offers a complete constitutional
view of the acquired and inherited effects of unresolved infections. As
Homoeopaths we should understand this and give credit where credit is due.
Thirdly, as to the VD. Hahnemann was correct to point out that all not
chronic venereal diseases were caused by syphilis as J. Hunter proposed.
Nevertheless, his review of sycosis and syphilis was only a beginning. It
is quite clear that Hahnemann included the symptoms of gonorrhea and
various condylomata under the title sycosis. The Paris casebooks show him
treating classic gonorrhea with Thuja and other anti-sycotic remedies
without any HPV. It is also quite clear that not all the skin lesions he
describes in his writings are caused by HPV. The classic figwarts he
describes are actually much more similar to condlyomata lata, which are
caused by syphilis. It is clear that some of his descriptions were based on
mixed cases of sycosis and syphilis rather then pure cases. After all, this
is only the beginning.
It has taken the following generations to clearly separate and expand
the symptoms of the two venereal diseases. It is they who have clearly
separated the condlyomata acuminata of sycosis and the condlyomata lata of
syphilis. It is my opinion, that the full sycosis syndrome includes a
spectrum of infective agents that all share a similar susceptibility and
produce a homogeneous set of symptoms when suppressed. Those who have had
gonorrhea seemed to become very susceptibly to HPV, etc. I have recorded
many cases in which those with suppressed gonorrhea later developed HPV
warts as well as many other moles and flecks. So if one looks at the over
all hypothesis and follows it clinically they will see many confirmations
of the basic hypothesis but we need to bring this material all up to date.
I think Hahnemann description of psora is VERY precise and quite
clear. First of all, Hahnemann did not invent the term psora. It was used
by the ancient Greeks to describe a number of skin diseases and their
concomitants. What Hahnemann was doing with this term was giving it a more
specific definition and bring it up to date fro his times. Hahnemann
clearly points out that psora is an infectious disease of the skin that is
pasted by the primary lesions of those suffering from the disease. All of
the disease he describes as carries of primary psora are caused by
microorganisms. In his writing he mentions scabies, herpes, tetter,
ringworm, erysipelas, leprosy, boils, pimples, all as primary psora capable
of transmitting the infectious disease. Therefore, he clearly points out
that mites, fungi, viruses, and bacteria carry primary psora. Hering
remarked that one could make up sub-species of psora, such a psora 1
(mites), 2 (tinea), 3 (viral) 4 (bacteria). I have done this in my work.
This makes it clear that latent and secondary psora is caused
unresolved and suppressed soft tissue infections caused by microorganisms.
These diseases share the same pathway of disease and produce a homogenous
set of signs and symptoms when suppressed. The fact that the suppression
primary infections as well as their secondary lesions causes constitutional
diseases is a great gift to the healing arts just by itself! The allopathic
school still does NOT understand this. Please, dear students and colleague,
don't underestimate the contributions of Samuel Hahnemann in these regards.
I know there are some who think that the psora study is useful but I think
they are missing many very important points.
Hahnemann also made it clear that psora may be acquired by infection
or heredity. In the case of hereditary psora, however, the diseases is not
being transmitted by the primary eruptions. The affects of the disease are
being passed through the generations in a dynamic form as predispositions
and symptoms. One of the most common inherited affects of psora is, of
course, skin problems and susceptibility to skin infections as wells as
symptoms of malnutrition based on mal-assimilation and host of other
difficulties that correspond to the main characteristics of the miasma.
Most cases of inherited psora demonstrate skin symptoms at some point as a
principle concomitant to internal complaints.
Hahnemann collected the symptoms of psora based on a group case from
1817 to 1827. On the basis of the collective symptoms he came up with a
group of remedies that he considered to be the most similar to the group
symptoms of psora. The anti-psoric remedies are chronic genus epidemicus
remedies that carry the characteristics of found in the group study. This
is clearly explained in the Organon. He introduced a great number of
mineral remedies in this collection as he felt the minerals were inherently
powerful enough to be anti-psoric remedies. To be a full anti-psoric remedy
the medicine must have the power to remove the characteristics of all three
stages of psora experienced in a majority of patients in the group study. A
remedy that only covers a smaller part of the symptoms in one or two
patients is not a true anti-psoric remedy. That is the difference between a
apsoric remedy and an anti-psoric remedy.
I do not just brand all these symptoms as psora and leave it at that.
For me to decide that a case is based on inherited psora I must see clear
signs and symptom that are truly characteristic of psora in the study.
There could be other reasons way the patient did not recover. Maybe that
did not get sufficient food or water; maybe they suffered a serious trauma;
maybe they were under severe psychological stress. As far as the patient
goes it is usually relatively easy to find out if they were never well
after a serious acute miasms unless it happened when they were very young
and they don't remember. Even here, it is often possible to get such
information from family members. Sometimes, one can even uncover
information from parents and grandparents about other family members in the
case history. I have confirmed many interesting conditions over the years
through just such investigations. I suspected certain states by the
symptoms and confirmed them in the patients and ancestors.
One must understand the types of symptoms that acute miasms leave
behind. The sequels of diphtheria are different than the sequels of
typhoid, etc. Sometimes, you see intermittent fevers in children of parents
or grandparents that suffered from malaria. These patients do not have the
malaria parasite, diphtheria or typhoid bacteria but they have syndromes
that remind one of these diseases. These are not the same as psora, etc.
One must study the nature of disease very closely to understand such things.
Is that what this is all about? First, some of what was written is
questionable. Second, I have explained my views on the clinical many times
on this list. This last time was very recently. I am not going to get drawn
into this time and time again for no good reason. All I am going to say is
that the Organon is based on knowledge of disease, knowledge of medicines,
and knowledge on how to apply similar remedies to similar disease states.
The more knowledge one has on the nature of the disease and its time and
progression the better one is able to prescribe similar remedies and manage
a case over the long term. Understanding the nature of the disease under
treatment provides one with more understanding about what they are treating
and helps in forming a prognosis and managing a case. A case of "cold" is
quite different than a case of "syphilis" in symptoms, time and
progressions. To ignore such fundamental differences is irresponsible.
Understanding the potential medical powers of remedies provides one
with more understanding of the possible causes, symptoms and circumstances
they may remove. Knowing what has happened in the past and why helps one to
know what to expect according to the direction of cure (Hering's law's).
This provides one with more understanding of how to judge the healing
process. In other words, the more understanding of homoeopathic philosophy
and pathology on has the more prepared one is for clinical realties and
makes one a better healing artist.
Sincerely, David Little
---------------
"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines."
Samuel Hahnemann
Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2000