Miasm (infection) or?

[Piet Guijt]

Hello Nader,
When one speak about miasms in general and between bracket say (infections)
as a an explanation what they ARE.
I have a real problem with that, because this means all miasms are equal or
synonym for just "infections".
For acute miasms this sometimes can be true, although I don't think that
every acute infections is an acute miasm.
For the Chronic miasms this isn't true either, because this excludes the
EFFECT of the chronic infection.
Even when the infection has gone, this effect remains.
So in my opinion it is a simplification to say Miasm (infection). Hahnemann
said about chronic miasm "the disease that was received by infection or
inheritance" The inheritance part is very important, this is the genetic
miasmatic predisposition.
We can theorize where this come from, of course sometimes maybe most of the
times caused by the toxins of a chronic infection, but suppression of other
toxins or other causes will have a similar effect. But does the origin
really matter when we recognize a similar constitutional disease pattern? So
Hahnemann's definition is much better.
To exclude this inheritance part in a general equation, is in my opinion
wrong and might turn out to be misleading.
Kind regards, Piet