Psycosis, Psittacosis & Common Gonorrhea 3 (long)
Posted: Mon May 15, 2006 5:05 am
It is that time of the year when - like the return of the King- all
things that go around start coming around – and we have the self-same
miasm discussion.
Of course this time around there is the rare pleasure of seeing 2 of
the "Top Ten Greats" slugging it out in the ring and I feel
exhilarated like I have a ring-side view of Rocky Balboa belting it out….
Last year when I suggested that this whole miasm business is wrought
with confusion and need to be revamped I was shot down like a bandit
caught in a border town. Now looks like civilization is finally
spreading westward…
Let me say what I have said always and always got the bound volumes
of "Chronic diseases" and Organon "6TH edition" thrown at me…
Instead of squabbling over what is sycosis (aka psychosis???) or
whether Hahnemann made a mistake or not- what we need is a minimum
common principle to guide us in treating chronic diseases that does
not get mired in clashes and is not so confusing that people never use
it apart from paying some lip service so that they can still be
considered faithful to Hahnemann.
I think all of us are agreed on suppression and that it can lead to a
lot of problems. Whether suppression or not, infections and other
things lead to chronic problems is something mostly no one could argue
against.
That there is a lot of history behind these miasms– no one doubts.
At the same time not even a single one of the current top homeopaths
would agree with another as to what any one of these miasm is, how
many there are, how they came to be and how they can be cured.
Everyone acknowledges them and proposes their take on it. There are
psoras. Pseudo-psoras and sycosis, cancer, typhoid and then a
combination of all these or some of these plus whatever each one has
experience with – come on – where is the much flaunted "science" in
this Tower of Babel?
Is this how we present a theory of chronic disease? To ourselves and
to the wicked world?
There are some who say that there is 150 years of experience behind
this confusion… so what? There was more than a 1000 year old history
for Galenic allopathy before Hahnemann and he was not thinking about
that when he wanted to change it.
Once we have decided that the edifice is crumbling and needs a
thorough once-over – why not take a fresh look at it – we may differ
from Hahnemann in substance but not in spirit-
Instead of calling the suppression of everything under the sun as
Psora – except the kitchen sink which is sycosis and bath tub which is
syphilis- etc. perhaps this is the time to rethink this whole issue
and come to some rational explanations… What is wrong in using regular
infectious diseases classification and calling miasm as a suppression
of such and such? By doing this we gain being in tune with current
research going on so that there is some rational give-and-take among
sciences. Study of microbiology, immunology etc, is not allopathy and
no one need to have qualms about becoming a turn-coat. It is part of
life science research. Yes we may lose some by giving up the existing
classification . At the same time we rid ourselves a lot of
unnecessary baggage we have been carrying as well. Less confusion
overall. Even in the context of the present discussion, if stalwarts
like David and Ardavan have different ideas about miasms, what can we
say about dummies like me with IQ in the 65 range? Who is going to
guide who and how do we know that it is right?
In homeopathy we understand disease as an interaction of our vital
force with whatever is affecting us – virus or bacteria or harmful
chemicals etc. The acute disease symptoms are a result of the
interaction ;the interaction might vary from individual to individual.
In the same way the chronic effects of the infections also vary from
individual to individual. Well let me accept that that the chronic
effects might fall into some defined categories and that if CLEARLY
AND CLEVERLY analyzed might allow us to prescribe based on the
classification rather than on the symptoms. But my heartfelt sympathy
for anyone undertaking to classify this-
Not only there are many more infections coming up but also treated
with increasingly pernicious drugs, vaccines etc. that separating out
any thing into any reasonable classification – believe me – is well
nigh impossible. What are the symptoms of disease, of suppression, of
the allopathic drugs themselves? In the absence of any such
classification of documented chronic effects what could we do now?
1) As someone mentioned a tripartite classification – classification
as those that just cause deficiency , cause overgrowths and cause
ulcerative conditions is as good as any. Once again we are only
looking at heuristics at this point to guide us in treating chronic
disease and not "the truth and nothing but the truth so help me God"
kind of final say on chronic disease.
2) More than any other field, study of infections and immunology had
taken off really only after the time of Hahnemann. I strongly think
that had he been alive today he would have reclassified and redone the
whole approach. Once we have accepted that there should be change- why
should we try to fit everything into the same mold that was created
when none of these advances were in place. This is like having decided
to modernize transportation, just because carriages have always been
drawn by horses for 2000 years, trying to create motors and autos in
the shape of horses as iron horses. Future classification should be
based on either the kind of organisms- viruses, bacteria, fungi,
spirochetes etc. Or it could be based on the immune response,
biochemical and patho-physiological changes associated with each kind
of infection and its aftermath. Search for your common, group
anamnesis in these parameters. May be also associate the kind of
sensations and symptoms with these. This will give you a solid back
ground to classify. It will allow us to prescribe based on some
objective evidence, allow us to test our theories and hypotheses based
on some verifiable fact and stop interminable hair-splitting
discussions of miasms. (Most importantly might even stop Rajan
Sankaran coming up with more delusions or vital sensation explanations)
Recognize that Hahnemann, who for all his greatness and foresight
still had to work within the limits of the science of his time. They
were based on a very rudimentary understanding of infections and
immunology however great the man who defined the system.
I do not doubt that there are deep acting and anti-miasmatic remedies.
I fully believe in their power in treating chronic diseases. But I do
not need the kind of miasm theory we have currently to explain this
curative action.
Trying to keep a faulty system in place to guide us while we are still
trying to create a new one will be as successful and appealing as
trying to be faithful to the spouse you want to divorce and courting
the next one at the same time. This requires a lot of finesse I
certainly do not have.
By the way first get rid of the word "miasm" - it carries so much
swampy imagery and bears the marks of the baggage it had borne...
things that go around start coming around – and we have the self-same
miasm discussion.
Of course this time around there is the rare pleasure of seeing 2 of
the "Top Ten Greats" slugging it out in the ring and I feel
exhilarated like I have a ring-side view of Rocky Balboa belting it out….
Last year when I suggested that this whole miasm business is wrought
with confusion and need to be revamped I was shot down like a bandit
caught in a border town. Now looks like civilization is finally
spreading westward…
Let me say what I have said always and always got the bound volumes
of "Chronic diseases" and Organon "6TH edition" thrown at me…
Instead of squabbling over what is sycosis (aka psychosis???) or
whether Hahnemann made a mistake or not- what we need is a minimum
common principle to guide us in treating chronic diseases that does
not get mired in clashes and is not so confusing that people never use
it apart from paying some lip service so that they can still be
considered faithful to Hahnemann.
I think all of us are agreed on suppression and that it can lead to a
lot of problems. Whether suppression or not, infections and other
things lead to chronic problems is something mostly no one could argue
against.
That there is a lot of history behind these miasms– no one doubts.
At the same time not even a single one of the current top homeopaths
would agree with another as to what any one of these miasm is, how
many there are, how they came to be and how they can be cured.
Everyone acknowledges them and proposes their take on it. There are
psoras. Pseudo-psoras and sycosis, cancer, typhoid and then a
combination of all these or some of these plus whatever each one has
experience with – come on – where is the much flaunted "science" in
this Tower of Babel?
Is this how we present a theory of chronic disease? To ourselves and
to the wicked world?
There are some who say that there is 150 years of experience behind
this confusion… so what? There was more than a 1000 year old history
for Galenic allopathy before Hahnemann and he was not thinking about
that when he wanted to change it.
Once we have decided that the edifice is crumbling and needs a
thorough once-over – why not take a fresh look at it – we may differ
from Hahnemann in substance but not in spirit-
Instead of calling the suppression of everything under the sun as
Psora – except the kitchen sink which is sycosis and bath tub which is
syphilis- etc. perhaps this is the time to rethink this whole issue
and come to some rational explanations… What is wrong in using regular
infectious diseases classification and calling miasm as a suppression
of such and such? By doing this we gain being in tune with current
research going on so that there is some rational give-and-take among
sciences. Study of microbiology, immunology etc, is not allopathy and
no one need to have qualms about becoming a turn-coat. It is part of
life science research. Yes we may lose some by giving up the existing
classification . At the same time we rid ourselves a lot of
unnecessary baggage we have been carrying as well. Less confusion
overall. Even in the context of the present discussion, if stalwarts
like David and Ardavan have different ideas about miasms, what can we
say about dummies like me with IQ in the 65 range? Who is going to
guide who and how do we know that it is right?
In homeopathy we understand disease as an interaction of our vital
force with whatever is affecting us – virus or bacteria or harmful
chemicals etc. The acute disease symptoms are a result of the
interaction ;the interaction might vary from individual to individual.
In the same way the chronic effects of the infections also vary from
individual to individual. Well let me accept that that the chronic
effects might fall into some defined categories and that if CLEARLY
AND CLEVERLY analyzed might allow us to prescribe based on the
classification rather than on the symptoms. But my heartfelt sympathy
for anyone undertaking to classify this-
Not only there are many more infections coming up but also treated
with increasingly pernicious drugs, vaccines etc. that separating out
any thing into any reasonable classification – believe me – is well
nigh impossible. What are the symptoms of disease, of suppression, of
the allopathic drugs themselves? In the absence of any such
classification of documented chronic effects what could we do now?
1) As someone mentioned a tripartite classification – classification
as those that just cause deficiency , cause overgrowths and cause
ulcerative conditions is as good as any. Once again we are only
looking at heuristics at this point to guide us in treating chronic
disease and not "the truth and nothing but the truth so help me God"
kind of final say on chronic disease.
2) More than any other field, study of infections and immunology had
taken off really only after the time of Hahnemann. I strongly think
that had he been alive today he would have reclassified and redone the
whole approach. Once we have accepted that there should be change- why
should we try to fit everything into the same mold that was created
when none of these advances were in place. This is like having decided
to modernize transportation, just because carriages have always been
drawn by horses for 2000 years, trying to create motors and autos in
the shape of horses as iron horses. Future classification should be
based on either the kind of organisms- viruses, bacteria, fungi,
spirochetes etc. Or it could be based on the immune response,
biochemical and patho-physiological changes associated with each kind
of infection and its aftermath. Search for your common, group
anamnesis in these parameters. May be also associate the kind of
sensations and symptoms with these. This will give you a solid back
ground to classify. It will allow us to prescribe based on some
objective evidence, allow us to test our theories and hypotheses based
on some verifiable fact and stop interminable hair-splitting
discussions of miasms. (Most importantly might even stop Rajan
Sankaran coming up with more delusions or vital sensation explanations)
Recognize that Hahnemann, who for all his greatness and foresight
still had to work within the limits of the science of his time. They
were based on a very rudimentary understanding of infections and
immunology however great the man who defined the system.
I do not doubt that there are deep acting and anti-miasmatic remedies.
I fully believe in their power in treating chronic diseases. But I do
not need the kind of miasm theory we have currently to explain this
curative action.
Trying to keep a faulty system in place to guide us while we are still
trying to create a new one will be as successful and appealing as
trying to be faithful to the spouse you want to divorce and courting
the next one at the same time. This requires a lot of finesse I
certainly do not have.
By the way first get rid of the word "miasm" - it carries so much
swampy imagery and bears the marks of the baggage it had borne...
