Re: Miasms
Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2004 12:23 pm
Dear Colleagues
In reading the exchanges on Miasm, it has helped as a revision to clarify
some points in my mind, so I would like to share them with you.
I think there is a problem with terminology. In fact David Little directly
points to this issue at the end of his last msg.
For this reason, I just like to give the following definitions:
(If you disagree, please definitely comment)
Please remember that Miasm was defined originally as a 'fog' induced
disease. Hence malaria was thought to be because of the fog of the marshes.
Acute disease = A set of symptoms which may be regarded as an epidemic
disease, either the patient survives it or dies of it. (eg cholera, measles,
or meningitis)
In the Organon pls see also references to peculiar miasm, infectious miasms,
and especially "acute miasms which recur in the same manner (hence known by
some traditional name)." Aph 73.
These require the administration of one specific or selection from just a
few remedies to cover the specifics of the disease symptoms - pls see Aph
241
Chronic Miasm = Aftermath of an infection which leaves a lasting chronic
impression and is capable of being passed on for many generations.
In today's terminology, when Miasm is mentioned on its own, a chronic
miasm - eg psora - is being referred to.
Chronic disease = A set of symptoms that last the remaining life of the
patient - the patient either dies of it or with it.
Acute within a chronic or acute of a chronic = This is a 'flare up' of a set
of symptoms and is not an epidemic disease. This is the reason for the
symptoms responding to the administration of the chronic remedy.
[Joy gave us the example of curing an acute with the chronic remedy, unless
she can prove otherwise, most probably she was talking of acute of the
chronic and not an acute in terms of an epidemic disease like cold or flu -
although the patient may have reported flu like symptoms.]
It is important for homoeopaths to be able to know clearly the difference
between an acute of a chronic and an acute as in an epidemic disease.
We also need to understand causes of disease:
We have Fundamental Cause [These are the inherited (miasmatic) and
environmental causes with which we are born]
Maintaining causes - Environmental and nutritional etc factors which
adversely affect us.
Initiating Cause. These are the things that are clearly seen as the start of
the current phase of symptoms.
Where we have a situation that the person has NBWS chill, heat, flu;
vaccination, grief, fright etc. In such cases, effectively the initiating
cause has awoken a latent miasm.
So these are not miasms in themselves (as Nader rather tongue-in-cheek asked
in case of fright) but the beginning of the reawakening of a latent miasm.
I look forward to your comments
Kind regards
Soroush
In reading the exchanges on Miasm, it has helped as a revision to clarify
some points in my mind, so I would like to share them with you.
I think there is a problem with terminology. In fact David Little directly
points to this issue at the end of his last msg.
For this reason, I just like to give the following definitions:
(If you disagree, please definitely comment)
Please remember that Miasm was defined originally as a 'fog' induced
disease. Hence malaria was thought to be because of the fog of the marshes.
Acute disease = A set of symptoms which may be regarded as an epidemic
disease, either the patient survives it or dies of it. (eg cholera, measles,
or meningitis)
In the Organon pls see also references to peculiar miasm, infectious miasms,
and especially "acute miasms which recur in the same manner (hence known by
some traditional name)." Aph 73.
These require the administration of one specific or selection from just a
few remedies to cover the specifics of the disease symptoms - pls see Aph
241
Chronic Miasm = Aftermath of an infection which leaves a lasting chronic
impression and is capable of being passed on for many generations.
In today's terminology, when Miasm is mentioned on its own, a chronic
miasm - eg psora - is being referred to.
Chronic disease = A set of symptoms that last the remaining life of the
patient - the patient either dies of it or with it.
Acute within a chronic or acute of a chronic = This is a 'flare up' of a set
of symptoms and is not an epidemic disease. This is the reason for the
symptoms responding to the administration of the chronic remedy.
[Joy gave us the example of curing an acute with the chronic remedy, unless
she can prove otherwise, most probably she was talking of acute of the
chronic and not an acute in terms of an epidemic disease like cold or flu -
although the patient may have reported flu like symptoms.]
It is important for homoeopaths to be able to know clearly the difference
between an acute of a chronic and an acute as in an epidemic disease.
We also need to understand causes of disease:
We have Fundamental Cause [These are the inherited (miasmatic) and
environmental causes with which we are born]
Maintaining causes - Environmental and nutritional etc factors which
adversely affect us.
Initiating Cause. These are the things that are clearly seen as the start of
the current phase of symptoms.
Where we have a situation that the person has NBWS chill, heat, flu;
vaccination, grief, fright etc. In such cases, effectively the initiating
cause has awoken a latent miasm.
So these are not miasms in themselves (as Nader rather tongue-in-cheek asked
in case of fright) but the beginning of the reawakening of a latent miasm.
I look forward to your comments
Kind regards
Soroush