A Faulty Medical Model: The Germ Theory

[Shannon M]

Thank you, Ben!
Interesting too that this is a far more general use of the term "miasm"
than what (most) homeopaths have come to use.

And Sheri, yes I agree, that the word "probably" is important. But it
does go along with the understanding I had expressed, that Hahnemann
was indeed a believer both in "contagion" (very much so) and in
pathogenic organisms. I certainly agree that, like any human, his
understandings were not necessarily perfect. But in this area, well...
His understandings seem to have served us well. I wonder how well the
understanding of "every microorganism as benign scavenger"
understanding will serve a person?
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Shannon M]

Simple observation says that pathogens are are *both* (at various
times); bacteria can cause disease, but will not take root if the
terrain is sufficiently inhospitable to them (either due to strong
immune function, and/or other factors). And, it seems that Hahnemann
too made reference to both facts. The passage referenced seems (to me)
to clearly suggest that he saw those little critters as causative;
elsewhere he has also made it clear that "cause" (of various sorts, not
just microorganisms) will take root only if there is susceptibility.
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Luise Kunkle]

Where did he say that?

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

[rpautrey2]

That was well said(pathogens & terrain). Paul Autrey
In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Shannon wrote:
Hahnemann
me)
not
vital