At 11:43 PM 5/11/2006, you wrote:
A. First of all, Hahnemann description of sycosis is very limited and
only represents his observations in 1828. He may have included a host of
venereal diseases his study. He told Boenninghausen he was going to share a
larger study but unfortunately he did not and we have not found his notes
on the subject. We don't know what he thought by 1843. Hahnemann did say
that sometimes gonorrhea was present in sycotic cases but the details are
very scant. Therefore, just what type of gonorrhea he referring to as part
of the chronic disease syndrome is not clear. I am not sure the idea that
some form of gonorrhea is chronic is in contrast with what Hahnemann. Just
because he made statements about acute gonorrhea in the footnotes may have
nothing to do with gonorrhea N. His Paris casebooks between 1835 and 1843
show that he treated gonorrhea as a sycotic disease.
B. AND yes, most homoeopaths agree that gonorrhea is a chronic miasm
that can cause long term chronic symptoms. It was Will Taylor that took up
the old allopathic position that gonorrhea N is only local disease. The
truth is that gonorrhea Nesseria is a chronic disease that is very
destructive, especially when suppressed.
A. Psora is not caused by one single causative agent. Hahnemann spoke of
a number of infective agents such as mites, bacteria and fungi, etc. So it
is not absolutely necessary that each and every miasm has only has one
infective agent. This sets a certain precedent.
B. I agree that HPV is a different microorganism which causes the warts
associate with condylomata acuminatum. That is has "no relationship" to
gonorrhea N is more complex question. Many "infections" are related to each
other and seem to thrive in a similar terrain and piggyback one upon the
other. Some are common opportunistic infections that come in families. So
although these are two differing microorganisms that does not mean that
they have no relationship whatsoever.
It appears that Hahnemann may have been observing a number of infections
under the title Sycosis. There is no defined one infectious disease
equivalent to Hahnemann's Psora either. Psora is transmitted by a number of
skin infections that produce a homogenous group of chronic symptoms on
suppression. If gonorrhea N and HPV are related by susceptibility and inner
terrain and produce a homogeneous set of chronic symptoms on suppression
then they may both be species of sycosis. Hahnemann methodology is based on
similar symptoms in a collective group not solely by one agent per miasm.
Psora is even more complex than sycosis in this way so there is a precedent.
Yes, you do.
No that is not what I am saying. I am saying that it appears that
Hahnemann included ALL condylomatous warts (acuminata and latum) under the
title sycosis. It appear he did not believe that syphilis cased any
condylomata at all. In 1788 Hahnemann wrote that he "must take leave not to
regard them [condylomatous warts] as symptoms of syphilis." He did not
believe that syphilis caused any type of condylomata! He did not included
condylomata latum (which are caused by syphilis) in his symptoms of
syphilis in the Chronic Diseases in 1828. Therefore it appears that in 1828
Hahnemann still believed that syphilis did not cause any condylomata. This
is not correct. Secondary syphilis causes condylomata latum.
Here is what Hahnemann said about condylomata in his article On
Venereal Diseases under the title Venereal Warts and Excrescenses in 1788.
"There appearance is various: they are sometimes broad and furnished
with a pedicle; in which case they are termed fig warts (italics); or they
are long-shaped, an resemble a cock's comb; or their head sprouts out
enormously, giving them the appearance of cauliflowers, etc; and writers
have classified them according to their resemblance to buttons, onions,
strawberries, mulberries,and so on, without reflecting that these
variations indicates no difference in nature, but only depend upon an
accidental conformation, consequentially are no essential utility and
cannot influence the mode of treatment."
In this article Hahnemann is not using"fig warts" as a general title for
all condylomatous warts. He has a very specific definition and describes
"fig warts" as broad like condylomata latum rather than smaller and more
pointed condylomata usually associated with genital warts. Condylomata
latum actually look like more like figs than a cauliflower, cock's comb or
onion, etc. . So when Hahnemann says "sycosis, the fig wart disease" in
1828, I believe he was including ALL condylomata (acuminatum and latum)
showing he mixed up some symptoms of syphilis with sycosis. That is the
main point.
Yes, it is true HPV produces a wide variety of warts depending on
location but here we are speaking specifically of "genital warts". Genital
warts look different than planter's warts, etc. Genital HPV most common
form is the smaller more pointed papilloma than a broad, flat fig shaped
lesion. I believe that Hahnemann was also describing HPV condylomata
acuminatum. Nevertheless, he also included condylomata latum. So Hahnemann
sycosis, the fig wart disease included all venereal condylomata. It was
later homoeopaths who corrected this mistake and move condylomata latum
over to the syphilitic miasm where it belongs.
I have confirmed from Hahnemann Paris casebooks that HIS general
method in primary gonorrhea was to use acute remedies until the
inflammatory symptoms were calm down (not always gone) and then he follow
up with remedies like "Thuja, Nitr. ac, Cinnabaris. In some cases, he
alternated remedies like Cannabis with Thuja right from the start! These
cases had NO warts! I am going by how he actually treated gonorrhea in the
clinic. This historical information can not be ignored! Hahnemann wrote
the following in the Materia Medica Pura about Thuja in the section called
Natural History.
"For example, he will perceive from these symptoms that the juice of
Thuja must be specifically useful in that hideous disease arising from
impure coitus, the fig-warts, if they be not complicated with other
miasmata; and experience also shows that Thuja is the only efficacious
remedy for them. And for a similar reason it most certainly cures that bad
kind of gonorrhoea resulting from impure coitus if it be not complicated
with other miasmata."
This 'bad gonorrhea" is caused by contracted by sex and is not an acute
disease! The worst gonorrhea is Nesserian. So from the start sycosis has
two elements S-1 HPV, the wart diseases and S-2 gonorrhea N. Sometimes
alone and sometimes together. Hering and Jahr also note that Thuja cures
serious gonorrhea when the symptoms agree. This was before Kent!
This is not "any miasm". These are records of how Hahnemann's actually
treated of gonorrhea in the clinic. He treated serious gonorrhea cases
with NO WARTS with Thuja and other anti-sycotic remedies. He did not treat
it like an acute disease. In some cases he alternated remedies like
Cannabis and Thuja for the primary symptoms right from the start and then
continued the Thuja and other anti-sycotic over the longer term. That he
used remedies like Thuja, Nit-ac and Cinnabaris for gonorrhea shows a link
to sycosis as these were his cardinal anti-sycotic remedies! Homoeopathy is
all about comparing the symptoms of disease to the symptoms of the remedies
so there is nothing wrong with noting the fact that Hahnemann treated
gonorrhea with Thuja and other anti-sycotic remedies. This is what is in
his casebooks and matches what he says in the Materia Medica Pura.
I believe that we need to bring all these areas up to date in a careful
manner according to history and homoeopathic principles. I do not, however,
think that we should automatically separate every microorganism into new
miasms in line with the allopathic books. If so, we would have to separate
psora into perhaps 10 or 15 different miasms when the group symptoms of
suppressed skin infections are ALL homogeneous in nature! Psora includes
more than one microorganism and is PSORA not just scabies (mites),
erysipelas or leprosy (bacteria) or tetter (fungi), etc. It is a set of
homogeneous symptoms produced by the suppression of all skin infections! To
separate everything automatically by microorganism too quickly without a
greater study of symptoms is far too reductionist in my view.
I think we need to look at spectrums of related infections, similar
susceptibilities and inner terrains, similar disease pathways, and groups
of homogenous symptoms. That is why I classify different subspecies of
psora and sycosis. For this reason, I am noting sycosis 1 as the HPV, the
wart disease and sycosis 2, gonorrhea as well as mixed cases of S1 and S2,
which seem very common. I am working on a studying the symptoms for
variations on the main themes through the group case method and cured
cases. As of yet, we do not know all the symptoms of suppressed HPV, but
from the limited number of cases I have studied that do not yet seem to be
too far outside the terrain and symptoms of traditional sycosis found in
our works.
To make major changes automatically or too quickly will only lead to
more not less confusion. Should we really just follow what they say in the
allopathic books? They would laugh at Psora! Do you really think it is wise
to throw out the term "Psora" and all the symptoms collected over the last
178 years and list each skin infection separately like the allopathic
school's superficial reviews? Hahnemann knew very well that scabies and
leprosy were caused by different microorganisms. What he saw was a
homogeneous set of chronic symptoms shared by the suppression of ALL soft
tissue infections. This fact must not be overlooked! Let us not forget that
the inner terrain and group symptoms are more important than the name of a
microorganism.
On the same note, is it really wise to look in a one sided manner at
the microorganisms involved in non syphilitic venereal diseases and make
them all separate new miasms without taking into account the group symptoms
collected over the last 130 years? How do know that they are not accurate
as to the effects of the terrain changes and production of group symptoms
like the review of psora? Shouldn't we look long and hard at the group
symptoms first? Don't we have to study 100s of cases involving the
suppression of venereal warts over a longer period of time before jumping
to conclusions? These symptoms have been integrated under the title sycosis
for more than a century and may include much valuable material. How do we
know these symptoms have no relevance to suppressed HPV? The answer is "we
don't". They have already been included.
I am studying the effects of suppressed warts (sycosis 1, the wart
disease) on patients, and as of yet, most of the symptoms I have seen are
more or less homogenous with what we understand of sycosis. If you suppress
the warts the sequels include feeling malaise, contaminated, foul,
irritable, depressed with symptoms of the male and female sexual organs,
bladder and kidney, joint pains, muscles pains, pain in the lower back that
spread upward, smelly perspiration of parts or in general, etc. As of yet
my collective study is too limited to give very refined symptoms.
None of these symptoms as yet have been clearly outside the
traditional symptoms of sycosis as we already know it! So far the symptoms
appear to be homogeneous with what previous homoeopaths have written. If
too many heterogeneous symptoms appear we may have to separate HPV, the
wart disease, into a separate miasm. This should not be done automatically
without a detailed study of the group symptoms in patients who have had HPV
warts suppressed by allopathic means. Perhaps, we will only need to make
subspecies and included some variations on the sycotic theme. We may even
have to correct some mistakes but this must be done by group studies not
*solely* by disease titles related to one or another microorganism. I would
rather go slow and steady by studying spectrums of possibly related
infections, similar susceptibilities, the effects of terrain changes,
similar pathways of disease, and homogenous collections of groups symptoms
and then decided.
Similia Minimus
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