acute & chronic with all threads

[isali]

Elham wrote: #71
Hahnemann divided diseases into acute and chronic.

Acute are those that start, have a prodromal period remain for a specific number of days and end either in death or recovery. They do not leave chronic symptoms. Examples are measles, chickenpox etc.

Chronic diseases are those that start insidiously and keep on growing from day to day and if unchecked never leave the patient.

isali writes:
Hn states in # 19 & # 17 that a change to a healthy state is a relief of the morbid signs and symptoms, and in #72 that the chronic morphology affects the automatic life force merely more gradually,...and with a useless resistance yields a destructive consequence.

My question to Joy, Shannon, Elham and others is, does not the vital force 'ultimately' suffer a reflection of a destruction of the organism as a consequence of its inherent chronic miasm which may be so inspired by an acute morphological presentation, that establishes a predisposition to manifest or remanifest a chronic miasm?

the issue I ponder is whether there is any 'cure' of a

Joy writes:
Re: Miasms - isn't it more to do with what symptoms any active miasmatic
influence will throw out via the vital force - these sx are nearly always
curable - depending of course on the 'quality' of the homeopathy. Cases can
easily be suppressed homeopathically at worst or at best (!) just plain
messed up.

When we are in good health and harmony I would suggest that our miasmatic
influences still lurk waiting for doors to be opened - after all, disease is
only an inability to adapt to whatever life throws at us. The miasmatic soil
will always be present - it is part of our genetics. But the susceptibility
towards this influence can be eradicated.

There is no doubt that homeopaths lack some science in being able to
assertively identify miasms but who knows maybe in time we will be able to
equal that of the geneticists and prove out points more definitely.

isali writes:
Your reference to the "miasmatic influences remaining as a lurking" influence; that its presence "is part of our genetics"; that its "susceptibility towards this influence which can be eradicated" calls to question the word we use....cure. Is cure best interpreted to mean a response that alleviates the morbid Sx by the appropriate application of principle? Further, is not the only distinction between acute and chronic morbidity a question of the depth of tissue afflicted in the organism? That the chronic miasm will afflict the organism ultimately?

If we attempt to utilise some aspects of value of allopathy, could we not view the genetic structure as a parts list and the formation of proteins to this structure as the counterpart to susceptibility of the V.F.? And that we should be able to measure these miasms on the thesis that their chronic nature lurks within the tissue of the organism, and that this terrain is with identification as a function of the Matrix.

Regards
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Dr. R. Swift]

On the topic of miasms, I would like to present a little of Dr. Vijayakar's
understanding which I find very useful. He considers the three chronic
Hahnemannian miasms as disruptions in the primary life functions of cells
i.e. homeostasis, reproduction and defense/destruction. (Psora, sycosis and
syphilis, respectively.) Therefore, Psora (a disruption in homeostasis) is
the mother of all chronic diseases because without that disruption, there
will be no disease. Sycosis and syphilis "grow" out of psora. In other
words, once homeostasis is disturbed, pathologies of excessive growth and/or
destruction can develop. If the remedy results in perfect function in every
cell, I guess you could say the Psora is cured, but how realistic is that
and for how long would it last? I think Dr. V's work is far more
representative of what we see in the real world. If miasms are truly
descendents of gonorrhea and syphilis, then how is it that we see such
miasms in non humans? Those "diseases" don't exist in the rest of the animal
kingdom.

I know this will probably open a rather heated discussion, but I think Dr.
Vijayakar's thoughts (and his success in treating serious pathologies with
classical homeopathy) deserve to be added to the pot.

Russell Swift, DVM
Classical Homeopath
phone 561-391-5615
email drswift@therightremedy.com
www.therightremedy.com

"Allopaths have protocols, Homeopaths have principles."

[Jon van Hoffen]

Dear Russell,

These are interesting thoughts. Seeing the three major miasms in this way,
as
reproduction and defense/destruction. (Psora, sycosis and syphilis,
respectively)."
would also answer the question how the Sexually transmitted diseases which
were new to the old world could build up so quickly in the few hundred years
since their introduction. If you see these miasms mainly as a weakness or
disruption of the primary life functions, the specific venereal disease is
just the culmination of this weakness.
If seen in this light AIDS is the ultimate in disruption of the defense
system, as the core of the human immune system is attacked.

There must be a strong miasmatic/constitutional element in AIDS too, because
some of the HIV infected never develop AIDS. This again seems to point to
the fact that you need to have a (miasmatic) weakness in the defence system
to be susceptible to HIV.

Jon van Hoffen

[andyh]

"Dr. R. Swift" wrote:
Dear Russell,
Hi. I find your introduction of this info useful for all, and (as a result of having looked at your website a while back) am going to get Dr. Vijayakars books. Points/Questions:

Dr. Swift wrote: If miasms are truly descendents of gonorrhea and syphilis, then how is it that we see such
miasms in non humans? Those "diseases" don't exist in the rest of the animal kingdom.

1. What is incompatible (With Dr V's theories) about the miasms being the chronic result, genetically engrafted, of an original acute epidemic of scabies, gonorrhea, and syphilis, respectively (with some as yet unexplained (by homeopathic theory) reason for susceptibilty arising prior to the beginning of skin afflictions). Maybe he is trying to explain what is deranged prior to manifesting the infection?) Am I forced to assume that Dr. V. wants to have these taints come out of a "vacuum" despite Hahnemanns research that the chronic manifestations (in humans) are related to
those diseases, and despite 100+ years of successful use of Psorinum, Syph, and Med that seem to confirm that research . His conceptions (allegedly substantiated by embryological and bodily systemic info in the books which I have not yet read) are interesting to say the least, as is his purported reliability as a practitioner. Can you explain why the mechanisms involved in his new explanation cannot be associated with what has already been shown empirically and theoretically? I apologize for not having yet read the book. What you are saying is tantamount to a complete rethink
of miasmatic theory, and I for one have no problem doing that, but require more substantiation for throwing out an aspect of the theory what appears to be the case. If you want to refer me to the book, fine, but some short form info might be helpful because I want to know if he really has thought out what he is saying on this point as you have presented it.
2. If Dr. V's theory (about the association of the top 3 miasms, at least conceptually, and possibly in mechanism, with (homeostasis, reproduction and defense/destruction)) "holds water", would scabies, gonorrhea, and syphilis be the only possible triggers to similarly appearing disturbances in the 3 thematic arenas which Dr. V posits as being affected? Are syph, med, and Psorinum as common as curative remedies in animals (wild, as well as domesticated) as in humans? If so (on the latter), then I see your point, and am particularly interested in further discussion, if in fact
the pathogens are completely incompatible and have no analogue., clinical or theoretical to the human manifestation.(So many animals share human diseases, (and my veterinary knowledge is limited) so do not know how many clinical syndromes animals and humans have in common, and lack specific knowledge of that sort regarding the pathogens being discussed. ) But *if* those remedies are *not* the stalwarts they are in human homeopathy, and if there is no way (even with knowledge of pleiomorphism in pathogens) that those diseases have *any* translation, then why couldn't some other
original animal disease take the place of the big 3 human manifestations to be associated with the same 3 thematic arenas (homeostasis, reproduction and defense/destruction), and thus create almost identical issues but with a different twist because of the slightly (mammals) or quite different (in many other cases) "architecture" "software", and infectious definitions in animal life forms?
Russell, I'm sorry to be so long-winded, but it seems necessary to ask the questions that need answering. I know you are not Dr. V, but perhaps you wouldnt mind expounding a little on his behalf, since you have seemingly offered to?

Best to All, Andy

[Dr. R. Swift]

Andy,

I will try to catch my breath after reading your questions and see if I can
do them justice. As for the origin of the 3 miasms, Dr. V. doesn't believe
to the best of my knowledge that anything comes out of a "vacuum". First,
there are certain inborn genetic predispositions. The can come from any of a
number of non lethal mutations, for instance or maybe they are just part of
our lessons in this life. In addition, there are a large number of "ailments
from" in the repertory. Most, if not all, seem to have the common thread of
a foreign protein being released into the system. The protein source is
either exogenous (animal bites, stings, vaccinations, etc.) or endogenous
(traumas, emotional shocks, etc.). The endogenous sources are not "foreign"
in the pure sense however, they are either out of place (in the
extracellular space instead of intracellular) or out of normal proportion
(neurotransmitters from emotional shock, for example.) One's genetically
programmed sensitivities and constitution, will determine whether or not one
will react to a particular "insult" and how.

I personally never asked his opinion on whether there was an original
gonorrhea infection because it does not seem important to my understanding.
If Med, Syph or Psor, is the simillimum the patient responds in a curative
direction. If not, not. Since there is so much common genetic material
within the human species perhaps those particular nosodes just resonate very
well with a large number of similar conditions stemming from that
commonality of DNA. Afterall, each of those "infections" have a character
much aligned with one of the cellular functions discussed in my previous
post. So, gonorrhea causes figwarts that is a proliferative disorder versus
syph. which is ulcerative (destructive). It seems to me that the fact there
are many anti psorics, anti sycotics, etc. belies the concept of the
"original infection". On the other hand, the fact that a nosode is curative
does not mean it is miasmatic otherwise we would have a miasm for every
nosode (bowel nosodes, staph, strep and on and on) and we don't. Well, some
people are adding miasms, but I am not buying it. The problem I have with
the "original infection" idea is that how do we reconcile that with a case
that is psoric for 40 years then become sycotic or syphilitic. Saying the
other miasm(s) were dormant? To me that is just too weak of an answer. It is
much more plausible to think of the VF being strong enough to keep the
disturbance to a functional level for 40 years and then changing tactics and
trying to divert the disturbance to a pathology. Again, practically, I don't
think it makes much difference except maybe in understanding the direction
the patient is moving. For example, if a patient moves from Psora to Syph
versus the other way around. Depending on your understanding of miasms, you
may come to a different conclusion on what that means. We will all,
hopefully, continue to prescribe the indicated remedy but it is interesting
to discuss these points.

As for animals, to my knowledge there are no equivalents to Gonorrhea and
syph. Since, I don't think anyone is certain what Hahnemann meant by "the
itch", I cannot tell you if there is an equivalent. Certainly, the nosodes
are used and are effective if they fit the case. As above, I don't think
that proves anything except they are like any other remedy - effective when
similar to the case.

I do think Dr. Vijayakar's work needs more attention and discussion. Perhaps
some members from the list could email the predictive school of homeopathy
at www.predictivehomeopathy.com and request a faculty member to get on the
list to field some of these questions. They will I am sure, do a better job
than me.

be well
Russell Swift, DVM
Classical Homeopath
phone 561-391-5615
email drswift@therightremedy.com
www.therightremedy.com

"Allopaths have protocols, Homeopaths have principles."

[Shannon Nelson]

Oh Isali,
Sometimes you make my head spin!
What do you mean by:

on 11/11/02 2:25 PM, isali at isali@bellsouth.net wrote:
Would I be reasonably accurate in re-phrasing this as, Doesn't the VF suffer
a foretaste of its death as a result of its (preexisting) chronic miasm,
which may be exacerbated / roused by acute disease, thereby re-establishing
or inducing symptoms of the preexisting chronic miasm? (Mm, does that make
sense???)

If so, the answer would be "yes" -- acute illness can given rise to further
worsening of the chronic state, proceding along the lines of the preexisting
miasmatic weaknesses. And sometimes what *looks* like an acute illness is
instead an "acute exacerbation of the chronic illness" -- a fluctuation of
the chronic state. In that case acute remedies are likely to fail, and you
may instead have to find the "constitutional" / chronic remedy to treat the
apparent "acute".
Ouch. Do you mean you wonder whether a miasm itself can actually be cured,
or whether can one hope at best to alleeviate the patient's symptoms and
sufferings, and also support the vital force in its efforts?

If so, my understanding is that *apparently*, and at least *in theory*,
miasms can be cured and eliminated -- tho not all of them, you could never
have a living human being completely free of his past, of his ancestors'
influence, of any genetic limitations, etc. But you could, at least in
theory, as I understand it, eliminate the miasms other than psora. Surely
that's all speculative, tho...

Not exactly. You can alleviate symptoms thru palliation and suppression,
too! "Cure" means that the sxs are removed *and* the total organism is
returned to its (prior or presumed) state of "health".

Further, is not the

I'd say no to this, too. Is meningitis (acute, but possibly lethal) less
severe than a chronic skin ailment? Perhaps I missed your meaning...

Somewhere recently there was an article (could it have been something posted
here???) talking about how effects of poor diet can carry down thru several
generations. They were talking from a simple nutritional viewpoint, but it
was very reminiscent of miasms theory. Point is, these nutritional
deficiencies were *not* recorded in gene changes, and yet here somehow
heritable (like miasms!). I would make the same assumptions re miasms as
those authors made re heritable effects of nutritional deficiency -- that
the effects is recorded either in some more subtle aspect of the genes (i.e.
not in the nucleic acid sequence, but perhaps subtle angle changes, or ???),
or some other as-yet-unrealized mechanism.

Best,
Shannon

[Shannon Nelson]

on 11/11/02 11:15 PM, andyh@mcn.org at andyh@mcn.org wrote:
Hi Andy,

My thought too!
Personally,I feel sure that they (gonoorrhea et al.) would *not* be the only
possible triggers for these main miasms, and I would assume there are
corresponding pathogens in the animal kingdoms. Also, apparently psoric
miasm can be activated by deprivation in general, which certainly can affect
wild populations.

I've always found it a strange idea to think that psoric miasm could be
actually *begun* by scabies mite. To me it seems clear (oh man, I'm arguing
with Hahnemann again!) there would need to be susceptibility before
infection, same as with other pathogens.

Shannon

[Dr. R. Swift]

Andy,

Andy wrote;

9999 If Dr. V explains away constitutional susceptibility as biochemical, a
result of discrete genetics instead of an energetic phenomenon that can be
resonated with (and removed) by an energetic (nonphysical) remedy, then I
think he has waxed too materialistic. And ascribing susceptibility to
biochemical genetics without an explanation of how, giving empirical
evidence, does not cause the conclusions of the Chronic Diseases to be
disproved, and is not intellectually sufficient to answer the first question
I asked (what is incompatible between Chronic diseases, Dr. V's thematic
connections with the miasms; and why has he, from what you have said,
sought to discard the ideas).
**I hear folks talking about the "physical versus energetic" thing quite a
bit as if they are exclusive. I think that by understanding the physical
world (that is DNA, for example) better, we get a better understanding of
how the metaphysical world operates (that is the VF). Let's look at another
context. I am a religious person who believes that G-d created the universe.
I have no problem with the concept of the Big Bang. As I see it, even
definitive proof of the BB does not exclude the existence of a Creator. It
just shows how the Creator decided to operate within the physical world.
This can increase our understanding of both dimensions. Thus, the DNA and
physical body/physiology are simply the way the VF is acting in the physical
realm. As long as our "reductionism" is kept in the context of the whole
being, it only increases are understanding. As for why or if Dr. V has
discarded the infectious origin of miasms, as I mentioned, I have not
discussed that with him. I don't know if he has discarded the idea
completely or how he sees it involved. 3
Andy wrote:

Regarding genetic programming, miasms are not separate from genetics, but I
doubt that they are equal to genetics. And miasms do have a lot to do with
sensitivities and constitution. So if Dr. V does much ascribing to
genetics, then that is surprising. My interpretation is that miasms are
lodged in the living "field" of biochemical DNA. The animating and
operative force in the organism is non-physical, and the removal of the
taint can free up the expression of the biochemical elements.
** In terms of miasms, I don't think there is enough knowledge of genetics
to say whether or not they are inherited via DNA. The latest research shows
that the "one gene, one protein" concept is not holding up to scrutiny. It
appears that genes interact in groups. Perhaps the miasms are inherited
interaction patterns or thresholds of sensitivity in the various cellular
functions discussed. Those patterns are of course in the domain of the VF.
This understanding would work in either the infectious miasm concept or the
physiologic one.

Andy wrote:

99999 Not sure why compounded susceptibilities from inheritances present in
an individual is too difficult to swallow. We are all familiar with the
theories of Tubercular=syphilis +psora, etc. so we have some notion,even if
its not precise, that we are each a complex of energetic "disturbances".
**As for "compounded miasms", are they then miasms in their own right or
merely an individual constitutions expression of those individual miasms
involved. In other words, there are 3 primary colors - red, blue and green.
All other colors in the universe can be created by combining those 3 colors
in various proportions. It seems to me that miasms work the same way.
Andy wrote:

99999 It is clear that energetic entities can become stored in the organism
("dormant" ) to be later awakened. Example: a state of immune response
("disease") which is suppressed, then come back after homeopathic treatment.
I dont know why dormancy is such an outlandish idea.
**Of course long periods of dormancy are possible but it is essentially
impossible to prove or disprove as we have no way of knowing of the presence
of a miasm until it manifests and not when it is "dormant". Because it is
possible does not mean we cannot look for another more plausible model that
fits the empirical/clinical evidence better than the previous one.
Andy wrote:

99999 Is what you have been discussing also well covered in the first two
of his books, or would we have to engage a professor in dialogue (or attend
a seminar) if wanted to address the questions here and learn his message?
** Of course the books cover a lot of his ideas although not the detail on
origin of miasms that you seek. I would love to get Dr. V or one of his long
term "followers" to respond to your question. I am certain he or she could
do a better job of representing his work. Again, I ask that Minutus members
email the predictive school of homeopathy and request some input. Perhaps we
could set up a chat room, etc. www.predictivehomeopathy.com is the site.

Andy wrote:

99999 Not clear what the unsaid point was.

** I was referring to the topic of origin of this whole discussion
Andy wrote:

999999 Agree that Med or syph or psor *working* in an animal case does not
prove that human and animal miasms are equivalent. Are Med syph, psor the
*stalwarts* that they are in human practice, or indicated to a far lesser
degree?

**Have not seen enough discussion of this among vet practitioners in terms
of comparing to humans. Certainly there are those in the vet homeopathy
world that stress the anti psorics as the most important remedies, for
whatever that is worth.
I think I have exhausted my ability to clarify these points any further. I
am still working on assimilating them myself. Let's see what we can do to
get Dr. V on line to address these questions. His breadth of knowledge is
remarkable and he seems to have a clearer grasp of these topics than any of
the teachers with whom I personally have studied.

be well
Russell Swift, DVM
Classical Homeopath
phone 561-391-5615
email drswift@therightremedy.com
www.therightremedy.com

"Allopaths have protocols, Homeopaths have principles."

[Shannon Nelson]

Ah, Serendipity!
Re the question of whether animals have (equivalents of) syphilis,
gonorrhea, et al., I just read this at the very interesting website that
Natasha sent re syphilis/New World:

"Back in 1987, rheumatologist Bruce Rothschild of the Northeastern
Universities College of Medicine in Youngstown, Ohio, and William Turbill of
the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, reported that they'd
detected the chemical signature of syphilis in the bones of an
11,000-year-old bear. The bones of the bear, which once lived in what is now
Indiana, showed damage similar to that seen in humans with the disease, and
tested positive for antibodies to the syphilis bacterium."

Also, I think I recall that the reason Pasteur developed Pasteurization was
because of outbreaks of tuberculosis in cows, which spread it to humans thru
their milk.

Now, how about scabies and gonorrhea?

Shannon
on 11/12/02 9:13 AM, Robert&Shannon Nelson at shannonnelson@tds.net wrote:

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

Let us reflect a second............ syphilis, scabies and gonorrhoea are
names give to human diseases where spirochetes, scabies parasites and
gonococcus are involved.

There is absolutely no reason same or similar germs would not invade and
cripple animals.

The best example HIV (human) and FIV (feline), same class of retrovirus
if I got that right........

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".