Adenoviridae & Poxviridae - threat of Reductionism
Posted: Sun May 21, 2006 5:03 am
Dear Ardavan and Colleagues
The method that you are using in analyzing of new miasms (New chronic infections) is very similar to what Dr Hahnemann has done for Psora and almost sycosis and syphilis. but I belive carry it to excess will cause reductionism and trying to treat diseases separately instead of totality of symptoms. We all know that Hahnemann himself was the first person who talked about presence of two or three disease at the same time in a patient (Organon 40-42) but he insists in the same book that disease is nothing except imbalance of V.F (Organon 12-13) and there is nothing except “totality of Symptoms” which guide us to this imbalance.
It sounds till the last moments, Hahnemann has been completely against this idea to separate the symptoms of different diseases except for these 3 or few especial diseases. In my opinion this is the most important paradox in Organon that has caused a lot of deviations in the history of Homeopathy. Let’s see how we can discuss about this paradox and use it for recognizing new miasms.
As all of us know, Miasm means contagious infectious disease. We have several chronic miasms but if you go through “Chronic Disease,…” Hahnemann call some of them like leper, Herpes and sometimes TB as a part of Psora and call two of them as New (Different) miasm with Psora. It sounds he had some boundaries among chronic Miasms to call same of them the same as psora (Not New Miasm) and some of them different with Psora (New Miasm). If we could know these boundaries, we could use them in answering of such difficult questions like:
Is AIDS a new miasm?
Is Adeno virus infection a new miasm?
Is cancer a different miasm with psora?
For answering this important question, we need to go a little back in the principles of Homeopathy. The concept of susceptibility! Hahnemann says (Organon 31):
” The inimical forces, partly psychical, partly physical, to which our terrestrial existence is exposed, which are termed morbific noxious agents, do not possess the power of morbidly deranging the health of man unconditionally1; but we are made ill by them only when our organism is sufficiently disposed and susceptible to attack of the morbific cause that may be present, and to be altered in its health, deranged and made to undergo abnormal sensations and functions - hence they do not produce disease in every one nor at all times.”
It means for affecting by any new disease we need to have some grades of susceptibility. But what is the source of this susceptibility. It should be something that there is no in complete healthy status. Why? Because if there was in complete health status every body should be affected by it and it is against the definition of susceptibility. For example any person will die after eating 1 Kg of Arsenical poison. We never say every body is susceptible to Arsenical poison.
Therefore susceptibility shows up itself when we are not in the health state and in other word we are sick (Organon 8 – footnote). In summary the source of susceptibility is previous disease and unhealthy state of V.F.
Now, one interesting deduction; in affecting by any new disease we have to have some degree of previous disease. Therefore the rules of interaction between two diseases in the nature will come to force.
The new disease is similar or dissimilar to existing disease. If it is similar, the result will be annihilation of both and cure of patient. If it is dissimilar and weaker it can not affect the person (Organon 36). Therefore any new disease should be a stronger dissimilar disease.
Now we need to have a deeper look on concept of susceptibility and categorize new diseases on the basis of this concept. We discussed that susceptibility is nothing except existing disease of patient or in other word exit from health status. This exit can be considered in two aspects:
Quantity of exit: as far as the gap between health and current state of patient increases, the power of V.F decreases and the power of existing internal disease increases
Quality of exit: depend on quality of exit from health, different patients show special susceptibility to special diseases. For example one person is very susceptible to cold another one to indigestion or sunshine (Organon 72)
If we consider the first option, when the patient is still close to health status, because the susceptibility is less and VF is powerful, the new (Dissimilar disease) should be very strong to penetrate the V.F resistance.
Interesting when the gap with health is big and the susceptibility is high, because of strong internal disease, again a weak dissimilar disease can not affect the patient. Therefore it should be a strong dissimilar disease.
The most exciting results come up when you consider the second option. Second option says because of special state of patient, there are some new diseases (Sporadic diseases) that can affect this special person but can not affect other patient with the same power of V.F. (If it could affect any person with the same quantity of V.F power, we should not observe special susceptibility only in special person). It means the new disease is not strong enough to overcome either resistance of V.F or power of internal existing disease. Therefore it is not a stronger dissimilar disease.
We proved above that any new disease should be a stronger dissimilar disease. Then, what are these sporadic diseases???
The only possible answer is: they are not a new disease. They are exacerbation of existing internal disease (Chronic disease) because of triggering by the external morbific agent.
If this deduction is correct, the symptoms and pictures of such diseases (Sporadic) should be independent to external morbific agent and individual in relation of chronic disease of patient. Clinical experiences support this result. You easily observe one patient says “I always catch a cold in the same picture; starts with for example running nose, then loss of smelling and finally sinusitis.” And it is completely different with another patient with the same susceptibility to cold and even if the second person catch the cold from first one. (Notice we are talking about sporadic cold not epidemic one).
In summary; Sporadic diseases are not a new disease
Now lets return to the answer of first question; how can we recognize new and different miasms from Psora?
Considering above deductions, answer is easy. They should be very strong dissimilar contagious infections? What you get from this issue?
They should be epidemic diseases
They should be so strong to have no need any special susceptibility. Therefore they should be able to affect even the most robust persons.
Proving the correctness of these deductions, should you refer to “Chronic Disease,…”, you see both of these criteria have been mentioned for all three basic Hahnemannian miasms (Psora, sycosis and syphilis).
Any chronic contagious infection that needs special susceptibility for affecting the patient like Leper, TB,…. Should be considered as sporadic disease and therefore they are not a new disease. They are exacerbation of basic miasm and mostly Psora. Now please you tell me. Can cancer be a new different miasm? What about miasms that Ardavan is trying to introduce? What about AIDS?
Still we face the paradox between Aphorism 13 and 40-42. It needs another long article which is beyond of the patience of this manuscript.
Regards
F. Shaddel
Associate Professor in Organon and Principles
Secretary General, PHAU
Education Affairs Director CTCH
Administrator to HMA, UK in Middle East
-----------------------------
CTCH Administration Office
Tel: +971-4-3902257
Fax: +971-4-3664619
Email: ctch@bc.kv.ae
Website: www.scientifichom.com
PO Box: 502221, KV, Dubai, UAE
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
The method that you are using in analyzing of new miasms (New chronic infections) is very similar to what Dr Hahnemann has done for Psora and almost sycosis and syphilis. but I belive carry it to excess will cause reductionism and trying to treat diseases separately instead of totality of symptoms. We all know that Hahnemann himself was the first person who talked about presence of two or three disease at the same time in a patient (Organon 40-42) but he insists in the same book that disease is nothing except imbalance of V.F (Organon 12-13) and there is nothing except “totality of Symptoms” which guide us to this imbalance.
It sounds till the last moments, Hahnemann has been completely against this idea to separate the symptoms of different diseases except for these 3 or few especial diseases. In my opinion this is the most important paradox in Organon that has caused a lot of deviations in the history of Homeopathy. Let’s see how we can discuss about this paradox and use it for recognizing new miasms.
As all of us know, Miasm means contagious infectious disease. We have several chronic miasms but if you go through “Chronic Disease,…” Hahnemann call some of them like leper, Herpes and sometimes TB as a part of Psora and call two of them as New (Different) miasm with Psora. It sounds he had some boundaries among chronic Miasms to call same of them the same as psora (Not New Miasm) and some of them different with Psora (New Miasm). If we could know these boundaries, we could use them in answering of such difficult questions like:
Is AIDS a new miasm?
Is Adeno virus infection a new miasm?
Is cancer a different miasm with psora?
For answering this important question, we need to go a little back in the principles of Homeopathy. The concept of susceptibility! Hahnemann says (Organon 31):
” The inimical forces, partly psychical, partly physical, to which our terrestrial existence is exposed, which are termed morbific noxious agents, do not possess the power of morbidly deranging the health of man unconditionally1; but we are made ill by them only when our organism is sufficiently disposed and susceptible to attack of the morbific cause that may be present, and to be altered in its health, deranged and made to undergo abnormal sensations and functions - hence they do not produce disease in every one nor at all times.”
It means for affecting by any new disease we need to have some grades of susceptibility. But what is the source of this susceptibility. It should be something that there is no in complete healthy status. Why? Because if there was in complete health status every body should be affected by it and it is against the definition of susceptibility. For example any person will die after eating 1 Kg of Arsenical poison. We never say every body is susceptible to Arsenical poison.
Therefore susceptibility shows up itself when we are not in the health state and in other word we are sick (Organon 8 – footnote). In summary the source of susceptibility is previous disease and unhealthy state of V.F.
Now, one interesting deduction; in affecting by any new disease we have to have some degree of previous disease. Therefore the rules of interaction between two diseases in the nature will come to force.
The new disease is similar or dissimilar to existing disease. If it is similar, the result will be annihilation of both and cure of patient. If it is dissimilar and weaker it can not affect the person (Organon 36). Therefore any new disease should be a stronger dissimilar disease.
Now we need to have a deeper look on concept of susceptibility and categorize new diseases on the basis of this concept. We discussed that susceptibility is nothing except existing disease of patient or in other word exit from health status. This exit can be considered in two aspects:
Quantity of exit: as far as the gap between health and current state of patient increases, the power of V.F decreases and the power of existing internal disease increases
Quality of exit: depend on quality of exit from health, different patients show special susceptibility to special diseases. For example one person is very susceptible to cold another one to indigestion or sunshine (Organon 72)
If we consider the first option, when the patient is still close to health status, because the susceptibility is less and VF is powerful, the new (Dissimilar disease) should be very strong to penetrate the V.F resistance.
Interesting when the gap with health is big and the susceptibility is high, because of strong internal disease, again a weak dissimilar disease can not affect the patient. Therefore it should be a strong dissimilar disease.
The most exciting results come up when you consider the second option. Second option says because of special state of patient, there are some new diseases (Sporadic diseases) that can affect this special person but can not affect other patient with the same power of V.F. (If it could affect any person with the same quantity of V.F power, we should not observe special susceptibility only in special person). It means the new disease is not strong enough to overcome either resistance of V.F or power of internal existing disease. Therefore it is not a stronger dissimilar disease.
We proved above that any new disease should be a stronger dissimilar disease. Then, what are these sporadic diseases???
The only possible answer is: they are not a new disease. They are exacerbation of existing internal disease (Chronic disease) because of triggering by the external morbific agent.
If this deduction is correct, the symptoms and pictures of such diseases (Sporadic) should be independent to external morbific agent and individual in relation of chronic disease of patient. Clinical experiences support this result. You easily observe one patient says “I always catch a cold in the same picture; starts with for example running nose, then loss of smelling and finally sinusitis.” And it is completely different with another patient with the same susceptibility to cold and even if the second person catch the cold from first one. (Notice we are talking about sporadic cold not epidemic one).
In summary; Sporadic diseases are not a new disease
Now lets return to the answer of first question; how can we recognize new and different miasms from Psora?
Considering above deductions, answer is easy. They should be very strong dissimilar contagious infections? What you get from this issue?
They should be epidemic diseases
They should be so strong to have no need any special susceptibility. Therefore they should be able to affect even the most robust persons.
Proving the correctness of these deductions, should you refer to “Chronic Disease,…”, you see both of these criteria have been mentioned for all three basic Hahnemannian miasms (Psora, sycosis and syphilis).
Any chronic contagious infection that needs special susceptibility for affecting the patient like Leper, TB,…. Should be considered as sporadic disease and therefore they are not a new disease. They are exacerbation of basic miasm and mostly Psora. Now please you tell me. Can cancer be a new different miasm? What about miasms that Ardavan is trying to introduce? What about AIDS?
Still we face the paradox between Aphorism 13 and 40-42. It needs another long article which is beyond of the patience of this manuscript.
Regards
F. Shaddel
Associate Professor in Organon and Principles
Secretary General, PHAU
Education Affairs Director CTCH
Administrator to HMA, UK in Middle East
-----------------------------
CTCH Administration Office
Tel: +971-4-3902257
Fax: +971-4-3664619
Email: ctch@bc.kv.ae
Website: www.scientifichom.com
PO Box: 502221, KV, Dubai, UAE
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]